Webcasting the tech meets?
nick at ccl4.org
Fri Mar 11 10:46:14 GMT 2011
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:28:04AM +0000, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> >> Yeah, it's pretty easy to whack that pipeline together (if you have the bits in both senses). Linux laptop, webcam, ffmpeg, script in $language, server.
> > And when we have a meeting in a Pub with no internet? - or the venu doesn't
> > allow non-employees on their network - etc etc etc
> Then it doesn't work :)
> > I'm not sure what the advantage of a live webcast is over someone uploading it
> > the next day? It would also be better to have it available for
> > posterity rather than just live (I'm sure both
> > could be done).
> I suppose if you have a live webcast you can then have a distributed Q&A session after the talk.
> To be clear I'm saying it'd be a fun thing to do - I'm not suggesting that it's going to significantly improve the quality of anyone's life.
I actually think that broadcasting live will make things *worse*.
[So prove me wrong]
Assuming that it *is* viable to make a recording of a talk, and upload it
later, then that means:
A: You want it live? You have to attend.
B: You can't attend? No worries, you'll get it with a delay
If you can get it live, streamed, then:
A & B: You want it live? No worries, you don't need to attend.
At which point, what's the incentive for attending?
Surely the dynamic will effectively switch from "theater" to "live studio
broadcast". In which case, why not go the whole hog and make *decent*
screencasts that act better as Marketing?
More information about the london.pm