Live vs Prerecorded media

Conversations around originating a webcast for conference, including cameras and mixers.
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Utah

Live vs Prerecorded media

Postby BlackRG » Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:08 pm

Is there really any difference between live and prerecorded content if the communication is only one direction? Even what we're calling "Live" has a delay in it - often quite a bit more than you might suspect. Next general conference, try loading up the audio feed on two different computers to see just how far out of sync it is.

I can understand people's desire for "live" vs "prerecorded" but a certain amount of that might be based around us allowing ourselves to think of it the same as being there watching it when it really isn't. Any sort of media encoding that has a encoding/decoding time gap large enough to be easily noticeable by a human all pretty much seems "prerecorded" to me. I tend to think of all this "prerecorded" media pretty much the same when I'm viewing it with the exception of things that require a participation on my part that goes beyond simply digesting the media (prayer is a good example).

Answering what should be live (and possibly what constitutes "live") and what is suitable for prerecorded would go a long way towards helping to determine appropriate technical solutions to the various communication issues that are faced. Is anyone aware of any Church policy on this issue?

This prerecorded media issue becomes an ancient issue if we consider what King Benjamin faced trying to talk to the people from his tower.

User avatar
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Postby thedqs » Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:10 pm

Well my personal definition of live is something that is streamed to the user from a event that is occuring roughly at the same time. (Roughly takes in the 20 sec to 5 min delay for transmission, buffer loading, packet dropping, etc.)

Now from the current discussions I think we have determined that stake conference, ward meetings, and any program that overruns the capacity of the building needs to be live so all, that want to be there can be there. Some of these programs can be recorded too and placed in the local ward libraries. Anything that is small and would be shown later in member's homes or in small groups should also be recorded.

Anyway this is what I have gathered from the other similiar topics.
- David

Community Administrator
Posts: 24393
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:21 am

For me, watching something live (ignoring any minor delays caused by the transmission medium) makes me feel like I'm apart of it. Even though I'm far away and there's no way for me to influence what's going on.

But if it's tape delayed, well, then it just seems different. I'm just a pew potato. Scientifically it should make no difference, but psychologically it does.

As for recording local things, all I can say is to check with priesthood leaders first and be aware that the CHI (at least in past editions) have indicated that somethings shouldn't be recorded (I think it was sacrament meetings and/or things in the chapel.) I don't think there was any explanation given.

Return to “Webcasting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests