This is the starting point for the development of Delivering online engagements in the Glam Sector - Session Plan
Some of the considerations when picking a camera is how it will be used in the particular workshop. Is there a need to demonstrate hands-on practical elements or is the workshop screen-based and screen-sharing is the only thing required? Facilitator needs to be seen.
Daniel's Ten Cents… The minimum resolution you'd want is 1080p and with that comes an understanding that not all web-cameras are created equal. Research is king here and understanding what you're getting is important before pressing buy. From personal research and experience outlined below are the three solutions I'd recommend/have used. These solutions cost, there's no denying that but in the long run you get what you pay for. Test what you have, look at what you're getting and make your own mind up. These are just the list of decisions I made with the information I had :).
To be honest, the video camera is my preferred option as it is the most versatile. If you have to buy a camera though it will cost you $1000 plus. You need to look for a camera that allows for a clean feed over the HDMI; a feed without any of the LCD overlay information. JVC and Sony camera do this pretty much across their entire range. Many DSLRs and some compact cameras also. It really is a case of looking at what you've got access to, how much you're willing to spend and how it works with your situation. Web-cameras are always going to be less stuffing around and have one less piece of kit in the signal pathway but will never give the really pretty picture.
While we're talking about cameras we should mention lighting. When I used to make movies with kids for a living the professional mentors would always say the difference between the kids films and theirs was lighting. They were right. Dingy lighting equates to a dingy picture, no matter how good the camera. All the camera is capturing is reflected light from the surfaces that its sensor picks up. You need to consider helping that along and that can come down to considering where you're shooting (see below) or adding some additional lighting (see below). Regardless the option, this is a consideration you need to take into account and the best way to measure your success review the feed on a second computer dialled into your meeting/session. See what the audience is going to see and not what you're seeing in your playback window. It's not representative of reality otherwise and that is what matters.
Although many devices come with built-in microphones they will generally pick up everything in the room (and perhaps some traffic and dogs too).
Daniel's Ten Cents… People will forgive some crap video - they've been trained to accept it with Facebook and YouTube - but crap audio will turn them off pretty quickly and there is absolutely no reason for crap audio, other than being lazy or not being able to spend the money to fix it. The first thing is not an excuse and with the latter instance I'd argue you've got to spend some money on increasing the production value and if you have to choose one option from the myriad, this is where you start.
So mentioned in the video camera section, the two web-cams recommended have really good audio built into them with noise reduction. Odd are the video camera has probably got decent audio. Testing to see how it goes with your setup - as mentioned above, checking from the client perspective rather than your monitor - to see how it sounds and make a call. If you're in a quiet room with not a lot of reflective surfaces you're probably going to be okay.
DO NOT USE THE CHEAP AND NASTY MICROPHONE THAT CAME WITH YOUR MOBILE PHONE!!!!! If you've spent a crap load on something like the Airpods, Google equivalent, Bose or Sennheisers you might be in luck or maybe not. I've got good ones and they're just not good enough from where I am sitting and listening. The microphone on my Macbook is okay but not great; it's designed for meetings, not performance or production. I am yet to find a PC that has a great built in microphone but that might be I am a snob. So all the negatives said, what are the options?
Internet Connection
Standard HD (720p)
Full HD (1080p) Group video calls:
Monitors
It is a big bonus to have access to a second monitor if screen-sharing is part of the workshop. This allows the facilitator to have an overview of participants and reading body language and mood and whether participants are raising their hands to ask a question. In some instances participants will show you their work (if physical) using their cameras. Seeing the participants during the workshop will help connect with them and makes the experience feel less one sided.
Other
No matter how good your recording gear is, the acoustic environment is still the main factor in audio recording quality.
The easiest way to think about acoustics is in terms of acoustic 'comfort'. Ask yourself the question - how easy it is to hold a conversation with a few people in this space? Do I need to raise my voice to be heard with a few poeple in the room? Am I missing details in conversations? Does the space feel echo-y or 'cold'? Is there sound leaking in from outside, or being made by equipment in the room? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then the easy fix is change your acoustic environment - by finding another space to use.
In technical terms, a good acoustic space for recording speech has a flat frequency response, a RT60 of less than one second, with a diffuse near field response. In non-technical terms, we are looking (listening) for a room that is:
<MB
Have you got enough light?
If you are struggling to see you'll give yourself a headache- thats one thing. but your participants might be having trouble too and the webcam could be struggling (to focus) as well in the dim light.
Ergonomics?
If you are doing a practical workshop make sure you are going to be comfortable. I like to be on wheels so i can reach my gear. It suck having to reach over everything to get to a keyboard for chat when you are in the middle of your workshop.
MB>
There are many differences when delivering a workshop remotely and many considerations during the development. Delivering in person, with the technology and resources in a library is easily taken for granted.
<MB
I always try and run a trial of the workshop with a couple of colleagues, well and truly before your workshop date. If you do it early enough, you have time to fix the problems and be prepare to walk into the workshop confidently. It doesn't mater how prepare you think you are you'll always find something you can improve. No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. - Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke
I also like to document any learnings I have in these in these trials as its great to be able to go back after and see where you've come from. Reflections On Soundscape Box Feedback Session
MB>
In person workshops are a familiar and effective mode of engagement, with a set of implicit norms that may only become obvious with your first online delivery. The social aspects of this way of working are sometimes the main motivator for participant engagement – meeting new people, sharing time with like-minded individuals and the serendipity of social interaction are all valuable outcomes which are hard to replicate in a virtual environment. At the same time, technology uptake has changed the way people expect to interact, and it may be that your participants are more digitally native (and comfortable with the constraints) than the facilitator. Even so, working in the virtual seems to make the experience much more front facing m- the talking head on the screen is the sole input, and glancing about the space, chatting to the person next to you or playing with your phone becomes impossible. The facilitator is always on, and in a very focussed way for each individual – you and each of them feel like the only people in the room, and so each expects a more focussed and personal experience.
As a facilitator, ‘reading the room’ becomes fraught – non-verbal inputs are heavily filtered, if present at all. The ability to spot a problem and move to one-on-one assistance is almost lost, when the rest of the participants cannot help each other to continue an activity (though having a production assistant can help address this – see below). The facilitator’s view of each person’s progress is severely limited by the participant’s camera field, and this rarely includes whatever they are working on. Facial cues become more important, and participants need to be encouraged to be more explicit about requesting help. And that never works for shy people.
For the facilitator, checking on progress becomes more essential, and balancing these one-to-one interactions with group needs becomes a tension. At the same time, calling on individuals can help them feel more part of the experience, and a specific intention to do this will disrupt the ‘invisible wallflower’ mode that some members of every group employ as a default. This can be good (engaging), or bad (embarrassing), but likely you will not know until after the event. Some of the best online engagement outcomes have resulted from having more than one person on the other side of the screen, both for facilitators (see below about production assistants) and participants (seen with parent and child co-working, for example). Like most dichotomies, it might be that the best choice of two apparently opposite approaches – everyone present in a room together, opposed to everyone in their own room - is to combine both and have participants physically with one other, as well as virtually with the group.
Daniel's 10 cents worth… Remember that all of this is for the benefit of the audience/participants. Every decision you make around how and why you do something should loop back to them. Ask yourself repeatedly; if I were listening to this would i continue listening to this and if the answer is no then change it up. Record your session and watch it back. Be critical on how you present and what you could do better. Run it through with a colleague you trust and respect then ask them what could have been done better. You don't need to agree with them or do as they suggest but at least you've heard an objective opinions because as sure as water's wet and the sky is blue your subjective belief of what you sound like is not going to cut it. You will hate the sound of your own voice, assume you're speaking at a pace that is suitable for streaming and that your hands are not fidgeting but they likely will be. You do it so often that you will have stopped noticing and that is a recipe for not being the best outcome for the customer, because they are customers. They're not always right and they're trusting you know what you're doing even if you don't and the secret is this; fake it until you make it and the odds are no one will know the difference.
<MB
If you identify an issue being able to deliver something in the online mode, think about what you'd do in a face to face situation. EG if you can't understand what the problem a participant is having ask them to share their screen or hold their project up to the camera. You'd be amazed the solutions (for transitioning to the online mode) when you take this simple step back. just ask yourself how would i normally deal with this?
MB>
Materials will either need to be readily available and assembled by participants in response to a pre-event email. Pausing mid-event to supply additional parts, or to use unique technologies to recover mistakes is not possible, so redundancy needs to built-in to the experience for critical parts that have been identified as fragile or capable of misapplication.
Using common materials
POSITIVES
NEGATIVES
Using supplied materials
POSITIVES
NEGATIVES
Detailed documentation is a way to preserve the work done developing the activity and making it available for iteration and replication. Documentation usually requires that the activity be run through several times by the facilitator, and this process allows for reflection on the best sequence of steps, as well as revealing where the more difficult parts are. The facilitator can try different techniques, investigate alternative solutions and get a better idea of the time required (a good rule of thumb is to add 20% more time for an inexperienced participant).
<MB
Having complete documentation before the workshop means that you can try letting the participants read/ look at diagrams (under their own steam ) when telling them/ Showing them over the stream, Especially when the online mode is not working. Detailed diagrams of the box construction stage of the Soundscape Box workshop reduced the duration of this stage from 1 hour (with 2 participants) to 5 or 10 mins (with 7 participants).
Having this info online means studious or particularly engaged participants can go back and dwell on the workshop after.
MB>
POSITIVES
NEGATIVES
Tools will be restricted to those commonly available (scissors, writing instruments, etc) unless specific tools are included in a mailed-out package (which increases costs). Instruction in the use of unfamiliar tools also takes up more workshop time, unless prior learning packages are set up, and used. All tools used also bear greater OHS consideration, given the lack of direct supervision (and the possibility of first aid response). If unique tools (like a laser cutter) cannot be avoided, then the activity will need to be supported by a mail-out, with all the negatives listed above. This is not an absolute disqualifier, but it means the extra time and cost will need to be considered in the approval process.
A production assistant is almost essential if multiple inputs are used – monitoring participant experience in real time will save time and frustration. The assistant needs to be skilled in manipulating software and hardware used, especially if a real-time production suite like OBS Studio is used. The production assistant can also act as a subsidiary tutor, working in a break-out room to engage those who fall behind, or have difficulty interpreting instructions. Assistance with connectivity issues is also better dealt with beside an ongoing engagement, and immediate support will help participants feel less frustrated or abandoned. An additional person in the virtual room also helps negate concerns about child safety or inappropriate conduct by any party. <MB its great to get the assistant to monitor/ drive the chat conversation. Especially when someone has turned up to your workshop without a microphone …it happens all the time no matter how much to tell people minimum requirement to participate is a webcam and mic. Also unless you have a switched on assistant you can count on turn off the waiting… nothing worse than a participant waiting to get in. It can't be understated how great it is just to have an assistant there as you wingman to help you stay cool and not freak out if its all going to hell and you feel like jumping up and running away… or maybe thats just me. MB>
Experience has shown that many participants will not activate video or audio channels, making monitoring difficult during delivery. This may be due to them using protocols familiar from different online engagements, a wish for privacy or technology constraints (attendance by phone, for example). Facilitator direction may address this to some extent, but it should be expected and planned for. Monitoring participant work is difficult if their camera does not allow line of sight. Specific requests to show their work may be required.
Taking time at the outset (or including instructions in a pre-workshop mailout) about implementing the available Zoom backgrounds might help get more faces in the room <MB i hate the backgrounds as it can make seeing what they are doing harder MB>. Noisy household backgrounds are a common problem (as well as interrupting pets, children and spouses), but people familiar with Zoom tend to be tolerant of this. Addressing this explicitly in the opening conversation might encourage more video presence if intermittent muting is suggested as a solution.
PASSWORDS Remember that delivery from off-site using facilitator laptops may require that staff authentication has occurred on the machine while still on the SLQ network. An alternative solution is that the laptop has a generic user (‘Facilitator”) that can be used by anyone in possession of the appropriate password.
CAMERAS Camera orientation can be critical – an overhead point-of-view style is preferred, but this requires mounting a webcam directly above the workspace. Tripod mounted webcams are sufficient to focus on the facilitator (who can hold things in view for discussion), but give a working view badly affected by distortions of perspective. Having a monitor for the facilitator and using multiple screens so as to keep track of the participant view easily is important. It also helps of the facilitator (or assistant) is practised in using keyboard shortcuts to switch screen views on the fly.
<MB If you are using a top down camera, try marking out the extent of your feild-of-view /stageusing some tape. MB>
WEBLINKS Providing weblinks during the workshop (in side-bar chat channels) is problematic since they will be lost at the end of the session. Zoom allows for chat to be saved locally, but participants might need to be made aware of this. It is a better idea to include links in pre-engagement mail-outs, which are also then available for future reference