Video quality less important when you enjoy content

[Frank Glencairn]

Video quality less important when you're enjoying what you're watching

 

Research from Rice University's Department of Psychology finds that if you like what you're watching, you're less likely to notice the difference in video quality of the TV show, Internet video or mobile movie clip.

 

Interesting study.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news200831454.html

 

Frank

Edited August 13, 2010 by Frank Glencairn

[Alessandro Machi]

I don't need a study to tell me that a good SOUNDTRACK can eclipse the visual quality of a movie, as long as the two relate in some manner. However, video, and the freedom to overshoot, can actually stifle the creation of a good soundtrack moreso than a more disciplined film shoot.

[Chris Burke]

It is a very interesting study and makes one wonder if the prolific nature of digital video technology is at all worth it. It does really seem that show biz, or at least movies, is camera first then post production workflow then maybe story.

[Karel Bata]

Horses for Courses surely! Who would ever enjoy Lawrence of Arabia on an i-phone? And would Friends in 70mm really add anything?

 

Personally, I think the HD TV revolution is somewhat over-rated. Most TV is rubbish - improving it's resolution won't change that.

[Brad Grimmett]

It does really seem that show biz, or at least movies, is camera first then post production workflow then maybe story.

Huh? I think a lot of people would disagree with you about that!

There are a ton of things they worry about long before they ever even consider a format. Whose the star? How much can we get in overseas pre sales? What are the trailer moments? Can we do a sequel? Is this a franchise? Is this adapted from a comic book? Where can we shoot this besides the US to save money? How are we going to promote it? The list goes on and on. And a year or two later, about a month or two before they shoot someone says, "Hey, what format are we gonna shoot on?" Actually, right before that someone probably says, "Can we shoot this 3D so we can charge more in theaters?"

[Guest]

My friend just shot a feature film for $1.00 on Canon 5Ds and insists the usual "film is dead" rhetoric. He claims that so long as the viewer is entertained, the shooting format means nothing.

 

I guess time will tell when I see the sales numbers for his movie.

 

R,

[Dom Jaeger]

A similar study from the University of Wagga Wagga showed that it doesn't matter how attractive your partner is as long as the sex is good and the lights are off...

 

Actually I think Karel answered this one in a nutshell, it's a question of the context and whether visual quality matters.

 

If you're making an instructional video, who cares. But if you're looking to do more than inform or distract, the visual and aural quality are vital.

 

In that context, story is always important but the medium is pictures and sound, so you can't relegate those aspects to second order priorities. It's the difference between looking at art and watching the news.

[Brian Dzyak]

 

If you're making an instructional video, who cares. But if you're looking to do more than inform or distract, the visual and aural quality are vital.

 

 

 

I disagree with that. Packaging matters, whether it's a candy bar or what we watch on a screen. Audiences/consumers are drawn to pretty things and bright shiny objects so an instructional video has just as much need for some semblance of quality which lends to the credibility of the piece (whether deserved or not). Visual and aural quality are vital to any project that is made no matter its purpose.

[Alain Lumina]

Forgive me if this is glib. I know many great film ideas require special effects and wardrobe that make a certain budget level unavoidable.

 

But the most important thing about my films is by far that they get finished. Not left somewhere at the idea stage.

To make a fair/good/great film, you've to to finish it.

 

For those of us at the bottom of the food chain, this is the most realistic goal. Super quality, a la real crews, 35mm or high end digital necessarily depends on getting someone to give/invest money.

 

I try to stay focused on finishing, the hard way if necessary, paycheck to paycheck from my day job, which is a pretty good non-Industry one.

 

If someone likes my vision and invests, great, but how can I claim to believe in my vision if I'm too lazy to shoot my stuff micro-budget?

[Dom Jaeger]

I disagree with that. Packaging matters, whether it's a candy bar or what we watch on a screen. Audiences/consumers are drawn to pretty things and bright shiny objects so an instructional video has just as much need for some semblance of quality which lends to the credibility of the piece (whether deserved or not). Visual and aural quality are vital to any project that is made no matter its purpose.

 

Well if you're talking advertising, I agree the quality of the sound/ visuals will tend to give a product a sheen of excellence it may not actually possess in real life. But I seriously doubt the viewers of a you tube video explaining how a magic trick is performed will be saying "jeez the highlights are blowing out" or "those skin tones look a little off"...

 

I appreciate your viewpoint though, personally I always value quality. I'm sure most people here do. But the reality is that budgets will always limit the image quality available, and sometimes it matters more than other times.

 

But that's also why a good DoP is so important, because good cinematography can often make up for less than perfect image capture technology.

[Brian Dzyak]

Well if you're talking advertising, I agree the quality of the sound/ visuals will tend to give a product a sheen of excellence it may not actually possess in real life. But I seriously doubt the viewers of a you tube video explaining how a magic trick is performed will be saying "jeez the highlights are blowing out" or "those skin tones look a little off"...

 

I appreciate your viewpoint though, personally I always value quality. I'm sure most people here do. But the reality is that budgets will always limit the image quality available, and sometimes it matters more than other times.

 

But that's also why a good DoP is so important, because good cinematography can often make up for less than perfect image capture technology.

 

 

I also doubt that any normal audience member watching a Hollywood movie sits in the theater thinking things like "those highlights are blowing out or those skin tones are off." :)

 

Point being is that CONTENT is generally what general audiences consciously notice, be it "how to do a magic trick" or the next Spielberg epic. What they UNCONSCIOUSLY "notice" is how that information/entertainment is presented visually and audibly. Whether they know it or not, things like lighting, lens choice, camera movement, acquisition medium, exhibition environment... all go toward their perception of the product.

 

So, if the normal man-on-the-street consumer has the choice to either go see a badly shot, badly lit, hard to hear movie that is really funny and otherwise entertaining.... vs seeing the very well lit and shot movie with a killer ssoundtrack but the story is mediocre at best.... the odds are that Joe-six-pack will pick option @2 because it superficially looks and sounds better. In the same way, the person looking for a how-to on a magic trick on YouTube will naturally FIRST gravitate toward the slicker production before checking out the one shot with an old Magnavox Moviemaker.

 

I think that everyone values quality, but it goes farther than that. I think that people just naturally gravitate toward what APPEARS to be a quality project according to their first impressions whether those slick projects deserve that attention or not.