I'd have to agree with what
Moonlight said,
thecrackedpotgardener. But also, do consider this;
Making a video that is interesting to the viewer is a VERY difficult thing to do, especially using the "live" handheld camera and 'live' commentary... when you are both the camera operator AND the commentator. Even Hitchock couldn't do this !
There are whole LIBRARIES of books dedicated to the psychology of video production. (as opposed to the technology of it).
Viewing a TV program is VERY different to watching an event with your eyes. Your brain process the input in a VERY different way.
Firstly, your eyes (or rather.. your brain) automatically filters out "camera shake", and the disturbing effects of rapid panning or zooming. You can move your head around quickly, and your brain automatically integrates this into your awareness of your surroundings. Similarly, your eyes DO actually zoom in and out (after a fashion... although this is more to do with the brain focussing "attention" rather than an optical zoom). Again though, it filters it all out and gives an integrated awareness of your surroundings.
On the other hand, when watching a video playback, zooming, panning etcetera are NOT "autocorrected" by the brain; it sees what is actually THERE, and this can be a VERY disturbing and distracting effect.
A very similar principle applies to recorded speech. In face-to-face conversations the brain filters out things like pauses, or filler-words like "umm", and derives the meaning of your actual narrative. However, when listening to a recording, it does NOT.
(OK.. this is not
entirely accurate, as pauses etc can be taken as non-verbal signals, but thats another story)
If you wanted to make your video's more immediately accessible to the casual viewer, then you would have to consider....
Using a tripod.
User establishing and detail shots (sometimes referred to as "B roll")
You CAN use hand-held shots... no matter how wobbly.. but see 'editing' below.
Record the commentary seperatly. Don't try and "act" and "speak" at the same time. (at least, not continously.. see 'editing' below).
Plan a script out BEFORE shooting... both in terms of the pictures you intend to take (the "Story Board"), and the speech itself.
You CAN use camera pans and zooms.. but this is an art form in and of itself, and they should be slow.
Then comes the editing.. this is where we try and fool the brain into seeing a continous narrative, even though the pictures may jump around a bit.
Lay down the commentary first. Edit out the "umms" and any gaps.
Put the relevant pictures over it. Intersperse with establishing (usually wide-angle) shots, shots of your live action (but in a static frame, on tripod), and detail shots. You CAN get away with introducing bits of 'live hand-held camera' shots as well, providing these are relatively short.
Avoid lingering TOO long with any particular shot, but at the same time don't cut too quickly. Maintain a pace.
Avoid fancy effects; dissolves are OK. Captions are BRILLIANT. If you are changing topic.. moving on to a seperate "paragraph" in your narrative ... then the occasional wipe/flip/wizz-bang is fine... but 80+ percent of your shots should be cuts.
It is slow, painstaking and often frustrating. This is why I don't do video anymore. Even with todays superb computer-based editing software, it takes FOREVER.
A typical documentary might shoot 20 hours of footage for each hour of the final edited program, and take an hour in the editing suite for each MINUTE of final program.
But the final product would be MUCH more accessible to a casual viewer.
