Video Task ForcePreliminary Report

Submitted February 18, 2009 by the Video Task Force:

Melissa Gomis

Amanda Peters

Julie Piacentine

Lori Tschirhart

Charge

Explore the use of videos and screencasts, and provide a set of recommendations and best practices for future endeavors.

Project Overview

  • Live action videos created: 15
  • Screencasts created: 4
  • YouTube channel:
  • Screencast.com library:

Live Action Videos:

  • Ask a Librarian - two videos to promote the Ask a Librarian service: 1) a student testimonial of using the chat reference service and 2) a short “public service announcement” in which librarians list the various ways to contact a librarian.
  • Subject Specialist Videos - video introductions from subject specialists to embed in LibGuides
  • UROP - advice for UROP students from their peers on using the Library
  • Tech Deck - three videos promoting services available in the Tech Deck

Screencasts:

  • Off-campus Access - two screencasts on accessing library resources from off-campus: 1) on the using proxy server and 2) on the using proxy server bookmarklet.
  • MGet It - two videos on MGet It: 1) on using MGet It links and 2) on using the Citation Linker.

Lessons Learned

Resources Needed to Create and Share High-quality Videos and Screencasts

  • Access to high-quality audio/visual equipment, including camera, microphones, lighting equipment, skilled videographer and/or video production services
  • High-quality video editing and screencast software, such as iMovie and Captivate
  • Actors and voice-over narrators
  • Graphic design tools/designers
  • Creative Commons-licensed music or music created in-house
  • Centralized file storage space - accessible to necessary library staff, with multiple levels of user permission
  • Point person for distributing permissions to storage space and troubleshooting access problems
  • Established video distribution/delivery points that already receive high traffic (library web page, LibGuide, video or screencast channel)
  • Staff time

Identifying Topics Appropriate for Video or Screencast

  • Suggestions from public services colleagues
  • Discussion of efficacy/appropriateness of video versus screencast - Do certain topics lend themselves to one format or the other?
  • Is video the correct medium for your message?
  • Review chat transcripts, reference emails, reference statistics, website server logs, etc. to identify the kinds of information people are seeking and aren't finding for themselves
  • Consider topics that can be explained with few words - quick demos of how to find something on a library web page, for example
  • Consider topics that can be explained in 30 seconds or less or can easily be subdivided into separate, short videos

Working with Professional Videographers versus Student Filmmakers

Our experience with a student filmmaker:
  • Low cost
  • Poor sound quality
  • Less professional-looking final product
  • Necessary to borrow equipment (from Digital Media Commons)
  • Scheduling difficulties - the video project was not the student's primary responsibility
Our experience with a professional videographer:
  • Professional final products
  • Videographer provided equipment
  • Videographer provided helpful directorial tips; videographer's status as a peer enabled him to provide helpful criticism
  • Some original files were not provided to the Video Task Force

Prior to working with the Library’s videographer, the Task Force researched Michigan Productions, a video production firm affiliated with the University.

General information about Michigan Productions:
  • Contact: Patrick Murphy
  • Full-service video production is available but clients may contract as few or as many services – scripting, casting, filming, post-production – as desired.
  • Rates are $400-$800 per minute of video for full-service video production

Another option would be for library staff without specific videography expertise to create videos. As an ongoing project, because of the amount of time required, it would be difficult for non-expert library staff to create live action videos through a committee or task force structure. Dedicated library staff time would be necessary. Non-experts might be able to create videos on a one-off basis.

Technical Specifications

Most of our live action videos were compressed using the video editing program, iMovie. Their technical specifications are:

  • File format/codec: MPEG-4/H.264
  • Image size: 320 x 240 QVGA
  • Frame rate: 15
  • Audio format: AAC-LC (Music)
  • Data rate: 80 kbps
  • File sizes: 1000-3000 KB

These are the default specifications in iMovie for MPEG-4 files compressed to 'Broadband - Medium' size (as defined by iMovie).

Original video capture quality and specifications were not shared by the videographer with the task force.

Other file formats used:

  • QuickTime
  • Shockwave

College of Engineering communications specialist, Nicole Casal Moore, who presented to the UM Communicators' Forum, is willing to provide information on technical specifications she has used.

Because we have not yet promoted most of the videos and screencasts created over the course of our project, we have little user feedback on most. There are no known problems with the technical specifications we used.

Making Videos Available to Viewers

Some problems arose when live action videos were embedded in LibGuides through Screencast.com. Some users were unable to view the videos. The problem was observed in multiple Web browsers and in both Mac and Windows operating system environments. Our solution was to move the video to YouTube and embed it from YouTube instead of Screencast.com.

Interactive Shockwave (.swf) files cannot be uploaded to YouTube. While there are numerous options for converting Shockwave files to YouTube-compatible formats, none of the options we have tried has been successful. We have worked with staff from Groundworkson this problem and have yet to identify a solution.

For a fee, Vimeo offers better service than YouTube, i.e. better video quality, greater control over ads/other videos that appear on user pages or with embedded videos. However, YouTube has a broader audience and user-base.

Some videos are appropriate in specific contexts only. For example, videos of subject specialists welcoming users to their LibGuides make no sense outside the context of those guides. Such videos should not be viewable in the Library's public YouTube channel. It may be appropriate to maintain storage space in Screencast.com for such videos.

General information about YouTube:
  • Individual files uploaded to YouTube may not exceed 2GB in size.
  • Run time of videos in YouTube may not exceed 10 minutes.
  • There is no monthly bandwidth limit or other limit on the number of times videos can be viewed.
General information about Screencast.com:
  • There is no specified file size limit for uploads.
  • There is no specified limit on video run time.
  • The monthly bandwidth limit is 2GB for free or 20GB per month for a fee of $100 per year.

Archiving Final Versions & Raw Footage

  • Long-term solution is not finalized but presumably is BlueStream
  • Medium-term solution is DSS Group Space > Library Videos folder

Unanswered questions:

  • What should be archived? In addition to raw footage and final versions, storyboards and scripts can be very useful.
  • What should be thrown away?

Administering Accounts and File Storage Space: YouTube, Screencast.com, BlueStream, and DSS Group Space

Unanswered questions:

  • What is the approval process to get something posted on YouTube?
  • What is the file naming/organization system for the storage spaces? Who administers these spaces?

Enabling Reuse of Existing Footage

  • Captivate files and raw video footage should be shared in the DSS group space so that content can be reused.

Our Experience with Screencapture Software

  • Captivate works well but staff needs access to it someplace other than the KNC.
  • We encountered multiple problems creating videos with.

How to Make Videos Accessible to Persons with Disabilities

  • Scott Williams (Office of Institutional Equity) is available to advise/assist with accessibility, captioning, etc.
  • YouTube offers a captioning feature.

Casting / Student Actors

  • We found it difficult to schedule with multiple students (especially during the summer term).
  • Some student actors were more comfortable in front of camera than others
  • If we are marketing to an undergraduate audience, a message from their peers has more weight than one from the Library. Let student actors craft the script.

Equipment and Services

  • LS&A Instructional Support Services - equipment available to LS&A faculty only
  • Digital Media Commons
  • Michigan Productions

Best Practices

Live Action:

  • Use a professional videographer when possible.
  • When marketing to undergraduates, use student actors and have students create the script.
  • Use contact microphones to capture highest-quality audio from actors.
  • Store working files in DSS group space.
  • YouTube is the best free option for embedding videos.
  • Duration: aim for 30 seconds or less of talking.
  • Allow video to be delivered by link (via email, for example) for use with email and chat reference patrons.

Screen Capture:

  • Duration: aim for 30 seconds or less of talking.
  • Use a high-quality microphone – such as the UGL Snowball microphone – and record audio in a quiet, echo-free environment.
  • Allow video to be delivered by link (via email, for example) for use with email and chat reference patrons.

Preliminary Findings

In going forward, it seems logical to ask the Leveraging Technology Instruction Committee to assume responsibility for screencasting as it relates to instruction. This is largely due to the expertise of that group, staff in the Knowledge Navigation Center and Tech Deck, and the new videorecording room in the first floor of the Shapiro Undergraduate Library. Videos are a larger question. More resources and a higher-level of expertise are needed to produce quality videos. While we have had some success creating videos, due to substantial requirements of staff time and expenses, more thought should be given to how video production work can be incorporated into the library. In researching library video projects, the group found no single, good model for creating high-quality library videos. Below are questions/issues for consideration:

  1. What role do we want videos to play in our library? What constitutes a successful video? What is a reasonable investment for success?
  2. Assessment is key in moving forward, and there is a natural affinity for the Instruction Assessment Group to assume responsibility for assessing the effectiveness of videos and screencasts. Assessment ideas include:
  3. Conducting focus groups to gather patron feedback on live action videos embedded in web pages and LibGuides.
  4. Conducting pre- and post-tests with students who learn from a LibGuide with videos versus in-class with a librarian.
  5. We can assess the positive impact of the UC 170 video by the wait lists that we had for 3 sections of the course.
  6. When do we use students vs. professionals in creating videos or screencasts? The Task Force had minimal success in using students to create the Tech Deck videos, however the group has initiated a student video contest and hopes to find students capable of producing quality products. This project will be complete in April 2010.
  7. How should we “brand” or create a similar look and feel to our videos? Should we create standard title screens and music for use with all/most MLibrary videos in order to maintain consistent branding? Perhaps Liene could create a standard opening and closing for videos such as those at UM Dearborn
  8. How should we infuse videos and screencasts into our services? Distribute screencasts to chat and email reference patrons as appropriate? If possible, gather patron feedback on their effectiveness. Initial patron feedback has been positive.
  9. Procedures for posting videos to the MLibrary YouTube channel and Screencast.com library have been preliminarily established per the Web Group “secure your Senior Manager's authorization ... and contact the Library Web Team for assistance.” It would be advantageous to have general approval from a senior manager on the “concept” of the video at the outset of the project as well as on the final product.
  10. Funding is also a consideration. Professional videos can incur substantial costs in addition to staff time. Consideration should be given to obtaining necessary funding before getting too far along in the planning/production process.

1