I see a paradigm shift in online video happening

Posted by Ryan Jerz 01/09/2010. Permalink | Shortlink | Tweet it!

Something I think about quite a bit (for some obvious reasons) is video quality and how the proliferation of online video has affected it. I don’t mean videos that are well-done, good, Oscar-worthy, or anything like that. I think of video quality in terms of the picture quality, technical mastery, etc.

I always found it odd that while the FCC was mandating US television broadcasters adopt the standard known as HDTV (moving from what is called NTSC) back around 2005 and 2006, YouTube was becoming the powerhouse that it is today. The two things were happening at the same time, and what made it odd to me was that while we were all foaming at the mouth to get our hands on HDTVs, we were begging the internet for some of the crappiest-looking video there was—YouTube. I’m actually convinced that part of what made YouTube so successful was that when you uploaded something there, the site compressed whatever you gave them further and made for some very snappy loading times. YouTube set itself apart because they downgraded the video quality in return for faster response times. Other sites with better video quality suffered because of lagging. Hence, what I see as The Great Video Quality Irony™.

Fast forward to now. The new thing that’s taking off is cell phone video. Yes, it has been around for a looooong time already. But because of the release of the iPhone 3GS, I think it has become a normal thing as opposed to a geek thing. With the way AT&T sets up data plans, it makes uploading a video really damn easy. But there’s something weird that I see happening with the iPhone 3GS video. Let me explain.

Since digital cameras came around, we’ve all been taking pictures. Fine. Cameras are built so that when you hold it normally, the take a picture in a format that’s wider than it is tall—landscape mode. That fits the default style of video since that’s how televisions are set up. However, cell phone cameras default to the taller format—portrait mode. I noticed this with people I know who didn’t use their digital cameras a ton. Christy, for instance, takes a ot of pictures with her iPhone, and just about all of them are in portrait mode. It’s easier, and it’s there. I take just about every picture by turning my phone sideways and shooting in landscape mode. It’s a conscious thing as opposed to an unconscious thing.

When you apply that same principle to video taken with the same phone, what you get is something weirder. You get video that is upright instead of sideways, and it doesn’t fit with video players. I began seeing this when the iPhone 3GS first came out, and I’m pretty sure it’s going to stay. I thought about it again recently while attending The Girl’s dance recital an I saw a mom a few rows ahead of me break out her iPhone 3GS and start shooting—in portrait mode. For someone like me, who looks at video and photos every single day in a professional capacity, it’s very easy to think about which way I want to shoot something. For the normal people in the world, it doesn’t cross their minds, so they shoot how it comes naturally.

I asked the question on Twitter a few weeks ago and got exactly what I figured would be the response. It was totally mixed. Some people said upright (portrait) and others said landscape. Others even said it depended. (You can see the replies by looking at @replies to me on December 21, 2009.) To me, it never wavers. I would shoot every video in landscape and there’s no argument. But that’s what is shifting. And it makes for some awkward stuff on YouTube. I solidified my position on this when I saw a video taken during the Las Vegas Courthouse shooting last week. If you look at that video, it’s filling a mere 1/3 of the screen. Certainly not ideal, right?

The conclusion that I’ve come to is that the upright stuff is here to stay. It would be interesting to see if this actually becomes a standard feature on video sharing sites—an option to have one type of player or the other.

Related posts

Ryan JerzRyan Jerz is an all-around good guy who shoots photos and video, builds websites, and works in athletics at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received a Masters Degree in 2007 from the University of Nevada, Reno's Reynolds School of Journalism.

Comments

Scott Schrantz wrote:

You’d think YouTube would be on top of this by now. The number of people that have uploaded portrait videos in the last six months must be astounding. They’ve had six months to figure out a way to detect that type of video, treat it differently, and adjust the interface. It’s baffling to me that they’re still doing the vertical letterbox. That’s nothing more than a failure on YouTube’s part.

I’ve also seen it where someone will start a video in portrait, then realize what they’re doing and rotate the phone a few seconds in. But the iPhone doesn’t change modes while it’s recording, so the whole video comes out not only portrait, but sideways. YouTube needs a “rotate” button like Flickr has.

There may be other video sharing sites that have these features, but since the iPhone has an “upload to YouTube” button, they should be the first ones on top of this.

Jan 9, 12:13 PM

Ryan Jerz wrote:

I agree. YouTube is the only one I think it makes a huge difference for because it’s the biggest and easily the most popular among non-industry types. It’s the common man’s video host.

I really think it’s strange to not have another player for these types of videos. After a couple of weeks they should have been able to determine this wasn’t going away and started work on the option. The problem is that everything, everything is set up for the wider aspect. Computer creens are, which means that most page designs are, and obviously all TVs are.

The reason I linked to the pan-and-scan post I wrote a while ago is that I think the same phenomenon in occurring. They’re trying to force people into a set way that’s easier for the designers (manufacturers) instead of reworking the whole thing.

Jan 9, 12:27 PM

Jake Nady wrote:

Hello Ryan,

I’ve always wondered about the lure of youtube. When it was getting huge and all these stupid “viral videos” got sent to everyone, it was more of a cultural thing. People didn’t want to be left out, and wanted to be a part of the group. But most of the time, these videos weren’t really all that funny. I was never interested in that. Like you said, poor quality, short clips… why bother.

These days, I’m starting to come around to it as a “hey remember that one episode of Chico and the Man”… and maybe YouTube has it. So that part is neat.

Jan 10, 11:21 PM

Ryan Jerz wrote:

I am the same way. The only “viral” videos I care about are my own. YouTube, I’m guessing due to its initial dominance, is the de facto video search engine. Want to watch a music video? YouTube. Old TV show? YouTube. Etc., etc., etc.

Some may think of it as a chicken-egg conundrum, but I think it’s pretty clear: YouTube is the place to look for such things because the companies that control them saw it as beneficial. That’s why they enter into contracts.

Jan 13, 08:08 AM

Commenting is closed for this article.