Thanks to everyone for commenting on these threads. In our case, it came
together at the last minute. We knew that the library had the capability to
stream presentations, and Steve Kemple and I had a long discussion the day
before and that didn't come up. We both realized the next day that we
hadn't made arrangements to obtain "the better equipment" so Steve just set
up his laptop and we went with that at the last minute. One of the reasons
I posted notice of it here was also to share some of the content; I haven't
rolled out those Rainbow tests before and some of that material is really
However, I note some of the institutions that stream academic talks that I
subscribe to via YouTube don't necessarily have much better results than
what we got. I wonder why the camera cannot see the projections; is it due
to the glare from interior lighting? Or is the camera invariably blind to
what's on the screen? We would be interested in knowing how to make that
better. I thought the audio was okay considering the delivery system -- I
fiddle around, it seems, a little too much with the classroom turntable I'm
using, but I am adjusting volume for the room. All Rainbow records of the
20s are rather faint, and I was having to ride the volume kind of high
which invited some transient feedback in the turntable.
I do have a response to something Tom said:
Videos of a guy speaking while his shows slides are dumb. The slides are
the story. The audio tells it, the slides show it. No human required
(except it would be nice to have better-than-average sound guys running the
board). The house system is actually a good place to make the vids for
online -- capture audio and projector feed at the same time to a Flash or
I've always thought camera guys are a huge waste at conferences (no offense
to the Beals, but it would be more useful to just have great audio matched
to slides with great audio of the sound examples). Again, I don't need any
filming of me speaking to slides. What would be good would be matching my
audio to the slide I'm talking about, while I'm doing the presentation, so
there's no work required afterwards.
For me, it is the speaker and not the slides. Certainly I do my best to put
on a good show when I speak. And I was not at my best here. I was
recovering from a nasty cold that had lain me up for a week, and you can
still hear it in my voice. Also, Allisyn's death was on October 18 and the
sorrow from that event saps so much of my energy that I almost cancelled
this talk. But as Rody was a project we both believed in, and worked on, I
felt it would a disservice to her memory not to move it forward even this
For me, the slides are illustrations to create a visual link to what I am
talking about, and also to confirm to the audience that what's under
discussion is really real; that I'm not just making it up out of whole
cloth. That's important to me, as a lot of the topics I tend to cover are
things very few are interested in, and there's not a lot of secondary kinds
of sources to fall back on. There is much in the field, thankfully, of
recording history that affords such exposure, but there is the risk of
being too arcane and having to spend a lot time setting something up to be
comprehensible, such as here. I go in thinking maybe they've heard a little
about Billy Sunday and nothing at all about Homer Rodeheaver. Even to many
of us Homer is not much more than a boring singer on old Victor records
that are "too" common, and will not know that Homer's acoustical Victors
simply aren't the best records he made. Compare the Columbia of "Brighten
the Corner" with the Victor and it's easy to see the difference, or any
pre-1933 Rodeheaver electrical over the acoustics. I'm not so sure I could
get to such a "second base" with many in our fraternity, who just wouldn't
have the patience.
But when I attend a talk I am just as interested in the speaker as I am the
presentation; the human element, I think, is important. I would have the
technology to simply set up the slides to my talk on a soundtrack and to
deliver the whole talk as a post-produced piece. But the improvised asides
would be missing, plus the interaction from the audience, and the "live"
aspect of it, something that we had to go with by virtue the very nature of
the stream and its capability. I would be interested in finding ways to
make this better. The series of talks will continue for at least two years
according to the calendar that I have set up with the library and I'm
hoping that we can improve the method of delivery going forward.
BTW I once presented my ARSC Henry Cowell talk, which Peter Hirsch
delivered at Stanford with the music but without visuals, with the visuals
but without the musical examples, owing to a glitch. And it still went over.
David N. "Uncle Dave" Lewis
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:37 AM, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Perhaps a smart phone with a line in for audio. I've seen hard/soft ware
> for making your smart phone into a flash recorder. One would need a drop
> down cable to convert a line audio feed to mic level. Never tried it
> myself, no reason to.
> joe salerno
> On 11/15/2013 5:51 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> Attention people who know hardware and software developers ...
>> Here's the market -- many people now do presentations "talking to
>> slides." The only "video" that matters, typically, are the slides.
>> Embedded media is sometimes used. Rarely, separate motion-video clips
>> are run, but usually off the same computer. In the end, all of this is
>> projected through a single house projection system, and the audio of the
>> person speaking to their slides goes through a house PA system.
>> The place to capture this live as at the house system. A device with a
>> pass-through for audio and video is ideal, because then house people
>> don't have to hassle with more cables, splitters, etc. The device should
>> live between whatever switcher is feeding the projector, and between the
>> audio mixer and the PA amplifiers. It should record to flash media or a
>> hard drive, and record directly to some common web-video standard like
>> MOV or AVI or Flash. Perhaps it can have a setting to record full
>> uncompressed HD, but I doubt the switcher or projector are working in
>> that mode to begin with.
>> This could be accomplished in a little box no bigger than most audio
>> flash recorders, or perhaps it could be a box that connects to an iPad
>> or iPhone.
>> Someone would make some $$$ on this if it were priced cheap and worked
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 6:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Slide-tape show" Software (was Public Library
>> of Cincinnati Institutes Stream of Presentations)
>> All of this still requires post-production, which is what no one has
>>> time to do. I'm so surprised there's no software to just record it all
>>> live as it happens, audio feed and video feed, right out of the house
>>> system, right on the house computer (or the recordist's laptop). Maybe
>>> one of the Zoom or other recorders can take a DVI feed instead of
>>> using the built-in camera? I supposed you could do this to a good
>>> old-fashioned DVD recorder (using composite video instead of DVI), but
>>> no one has those anymore.
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Paterson III"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Slide-tape show" Software (was Public Library
>>> of Cincinnati Institutes Stream of Presentations)
>>> Back to the one of the early comments about software to create these
>>>> kinds of presentations. I have used iMove. But one of the challenges
>>>> I ran into when I tried to rotate photos fast to coincide with the
>>>> music track was that iMovie could not switch the photos fast enough.
>>>> This week I just watched a film by an internet acquaintance @Stammy
>>>> on twitter.
>>>> here is the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fR4MjImSU0
>>>> I was asking him about it and he said: "it's not video, all photo
>>>> stills. I just happen to take lots of similar photos to make sure i
>>>> get a good shot. it was made using adobe after effects. imovie
>>>> doesn't let you go faster than 0.1s per image still in a sequence"
>>>> - Hugh
>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Carl Pultz wrote:
>>>> Haven't had time to watch the whole thing, but I don't miss the
>>>>> slides so
>>>>> far. The info is interesting. It's like having Uncle Dave give a
>>>>> talk at my
>>>>> local library, which would be a delight.
>>>>> Lou's right. To pass on some advice, anytime you're dealing with
>>>>> you have to be aware of extraneous things that can become
>>>>> distracting. Being
>>>>> dark outside, the window is a nice background, but having the screen
>>>>> messes it up. OTOH, the reflection might be worse. If the screen can
>>>>> be to
>>>>> the side and the room lights dimmed, it could be nice. Also, the camera
>>>>> needs to be chest-level, not lower, and if possible placed farther
>>>>> back with
>>>>> the lens zoomed in to create the frame. That would minimize
>>>>> distortion and
>>>>> create a more flattering image. If sound is just from the camera,
>>>>> you can't
>>>>> get too far back, so compromise.
>>>>> I don't claim video editing as a professional skill, but I did the
>>>>> developmental-editing of several classroom manuals for instructional
>>>>> on Premiere Pro. It was a blast. More than capable and intuitive in
>>>>> By the mid-2000s it ran fine on ordinary PCs at lower than max
>>>>> I've also used Camtasia, which is similar but very much a 'lite'
>>>>> Could be all they'd need for what we're talking about, as could
>>>>> The vids below are purely of music, but show what minimal resources
>>>>> can make
>>>>> possible. My friend conductor David Chin has made some pretty decent
>>>>> of his concerts by using three stationary, un-operated camcorders,
>>>>> with the bundled Microsoft movie thing. I give him 48k sound files.
>>>>> no sync, but he lays the video over the sound and nudges the video
>>>>> into adequate sync as he creates the visual cuts, with the camera
>>>>> audio as a
>>>>> guide. The zoom effect is a feature of the software. Basic, but not too
>>>>> shabby for a seat-of-the-pants amateur. Comparing the later vids to the
>>>>> earlier, you can see how much of a difference better lighting makes.
>>>>> one Fresnel is all it took.
> Joe Salerno