Oh boy, do I NOT agree with you. I remember many years ago attending an
Allegro conference where the late Gabe Wiener (of the now defunct
PGM label) put up the first dazzlingly organized powerpoint demo I've ever
seen. And I agreed with Well Tempered Productions' Kathy Geisler that
the presentation "was like having sex with a computer."

Your premise of "If I want a performer, I'll got a comedy club" negates and
rejects the whole purpose of what we do at the ARSC Conferences. By
that standard, all of us could just send in our powerpoint and audio and
none of us need to be there. My guess, though, is that no one would show
up. In terms of preparing a great slide show and talk, I'm not on the level
of Cary Ginell, but my heart is really in what I am presenting, so that's
I'm there. Efficient and painless does not need to mean inhuman, and I'm
willing to take a little pain on my end to experience what a presenter has
to offer even if I have to meet the presentation halfway via a medium such
as YouTube because I can't be personally be there.

Dave Lewis
Lebanon, OH

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Hi Dave:
> I think information-rich slides are the only slides people should use. If
> they're just putting up an occasional image and mostly reading a script, I
> still don't see why it matters if we see them on video or not. I suppose if
> the sponsoring entity has money to pay camera personnel, then fine. But
> most don't. Sticking a cellphone on a chair is useless, it looks like a
> cheapo "selfie." My criteria for an interesting presentation means that
> looking at the speaker is not necessary, because the information is being
> clearly spoken as well as shown in carefully prepared slides or other
> media. If I want a "performer," I'll got a comedy club!
> What I'm trying to get to is an EFFICIENT and PAINLESS process for a
> presenter to walk out of the room with a recording of their WHOLE
> presentation (not just audio, visual media too), which they can then post
> on YouTube or wherever. Audio only is getting more and more useless as most
> of now use information-rich slides and talk to the slides. Audio-only is
> great for on-stage interviews, for instance. Efficient and painless
> precludes paid cameramen and time-sucking post-production, it needs to be a
> recording that happens as the presentation is being given.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 8:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Slide-tape show" Software (was Public Library of
> Cincinnati Institutes Stream of Presentations)
>  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
>> fascinating.
>> 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
>> MOV file.
>> 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
>> little bit.
>> 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
>> Lebanon, OH
>> 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
>>>> well.
>>>> -- 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:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> pictures,
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> courses
>>>>>>> on Premiere Pro. It was a blast. More than capable and intuitive in
>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>> By the mid-2000s it ran fine on ordinary PCs at lower than max
>>>>>>> resolution.
>>>>>>> I've also used Camtasia, which is similar but very much a 'lite'
>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>>> Could be all they'd need for what we're talking about, as could
>>>>>>> Photostory.
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>> of his concerts by using three stationary, un-operated camcorders,
>>>>>>> edited
>>>>>>> with the bundled Microsoft movie thing. I give him 48k sound files.
>>>>>>> There's
>>>>>>> no sync, but he lays the video over the sound and nudges the video
>>>>>>> stems
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>>> one Fresnel is all it took.
>>>>>>> Carl
>>>>  --
>>> Joe Salerno