Webcasting the Red Sox parade from a laptop
Steve Safran November 1st, 2007
(This article originally appeared in the November 1, 2007 edition of the AR&D Media 2.0 Intel newsletter.)
In 2004, I had the honor of doing live reports on TV from the Red Sox World Series victory parade.
In 2007, I went live from a Sox victory parade again - this time, from my laptop.
On Tuesday, I webcast the Red Sox victory parade from downtown Boston with nothing more than a handheld video camera, my Mac laptop and a remarkable website called Mogulus. Working with my client NECN, I was positioned on a media platform in Copley Square - right in downtown Boston along the parade route.
I plugged my camera into my laptop, logged on to a channel I had set up through Mogulus and started webcasting. NECN.com embedded the Mogulus player, so the webcast was transparent to its audience.
For the two hours leading up to the parade, I simply spoke, turned the camera on the crowd, and often let the camera “do the talking.” Because it’s the web, I didn’t feel the need to narrate every second. Occasionally I would pipe in to let people know what they were watching. It was different than what they could see on TV. It wasn’t as polished. It was one position from one camera. But if they were stuck at work, it was a webcam on a parade they weren’t going to see otherwise.
I set up an email account just for the day and asked people to send me their thoughts and questions. So what if I had to duck out of the camera to check my email?
I’d like to be able to report the result was a brilliant, polished and flawless webcast. It was not. This was an experiment after all. I like to get my hands dirty with new toys before I recommend them to clients. I was using a Verizon Wireless EVDO card instead of a WiFi or hard-wired Internet connection. Mogulus really, really recommends a better connection than the one I was using. So the occasionally jerky picture was the fault of my only choice of web connection - not theirs.
Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling holds the World Series trophy over his head in this framegrab from our webcast
The biggest problem came from the crowd. Although we were on a media stage, once the parade started the crowd essentially rushed the stage. There was no crowd control and in the onslaught, someone knocked out my connection. I had to reboot, but it couldn’t have come at a worse time. Fortunately, I was rolling on the parade in my camera, so once I re-established the webcast, I simply explained to the audience what happened, and then played the part they missed directly out of my camera. (All those years of being a TV producer paid off at least a little.)
For all the small problems I had - and that one big problem - I consider this to be a breakthrough. The quality is only going to get better. Last year I wouldn’t have been able to do as much as I did today. Mogulus tells me they are working on improvements that will make for better pictures from connections like the one I have, and even from mobile phones.
I didn’t replace any newscasts on Tuesday. I was strictly an amateur show. But I was also hearing from viewers around the country who were happy to have a window onto a parade they were missing. Some of them even liked the messy, clunky, DIY charm of my setup. Yeah, I did a “This is the worst webcast I’ve ever seen” email. But when you try something new, expect to hear from the cranks. We had a breakthrough day, my laptop and I. And while covering the 2004 parade with a crew was an honor, covering the 2007 parade solo was out-of-the-ballpark fun.
18 Comments Add your own
1. tdc | November 1st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
“the quality is only going to get better”
yes, and you deleted the orig. post before i could wish you nothing but success.
the quality WILL only get better. then the line between “professional” and whatever slur the industry will come up with next will blur even further.
grrr-r-r-reat job
2. Dino | November 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Could we do something like this for next Friday’s Veteran’s Day Parade?
3. Z | November 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
Now if you wanted to put this on TV, I wonder how you would do it.
4. Wow | November 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 am
We streamed the Denver rally live with a four-camera switched shoot.
But I guess that’s just silly in these days of one-camera, handheld, laptop webcasts.
Who’d want to see everything clearly when we can see the “charm” of you rebooting?
5. herold newgate | November 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
Nothing about this is *really* new…
We did this at my old station with a wireless camera LIVE… and livestreamed it.
If we wanted to take it out in the field, we could.
I am not sure — other than the site you are using to livestream with — what the big deal is.
All anyone needs is a 150k-200k pipe upstream of their video source (accomplished through wireless video card such as Verizon or WiFi card) and then the service that will stream it (audiovideoweb.com comes to mind). There are dozens of other companies that do this…
All of this was doable in 2002 and was actually done in 2005.
I dont get it..
In fact, laptops with video cards existed 4-5 years ago…
6. JoeMo | November 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hack, I can live stream directly from my cell phone, streaming from a laptop is a cakewalk. Get with it folks, this is old news and it’s a shame that people are spending time discussing it; no wonder why so many tv news stations are having financial issues.
7. Safran | November 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
The fact is that this is not old news for any but the most techie among us. I promise this is news to 99% of the TV execs. You can insult them and say that’s “the problem” or you can salute them for trying to learn answers.
The “everyone knows about this” attitude is what stops progress. There is more room for education than you realize. It’s great that we can stream from these devices - but don’t talk down to the people who don’t know that yet.
Insulting people who try new things and don’t get them perfect the first time is exactly the problem. Video snobbery is the problem. People fear trying new things because they’re worried they won’t look perfect. We didn’t look perfect. We lived.
It’s our mission to educate. There are plenty of techs who talk down to people. We try to lift ‘em up.
And good for Denver for having the resources to do a four-camera stream. Lots of stations don’t. We try to offer ideas for affordable alternatives.
I’m sure the Rockies’ rally looked gorgeous. I’m sure the coverage cost a lot more, too.
And I’m sure people liked watching our trophy, even after I rebooted…
8. Contrarian | November 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
You’re right on that cutting-edge with Rosenblum where quality no longer matters (when you can do a sub-par job for less money) with your “I’m sure it cost a lot more” comment.
Congratulations, you’re part of the problem!
9. James Arthur O'Brien | November 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
REBELCAST
10. steve Garfield | November 3rd, 2007 at 6:28 am
Congratulations. I’m sure people who were watching the live stream cared more about the content than the quality.
11. Steve Safran | November 3rd, 2007 at 7:23 am
Well, I thought I’d been called just about everything here. But “part of the problem?” Thanks. That was very funny. You finally came through.
12. Contrarian | November 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
You’re welcome.
I never thought I’d see that day that shaky, handheld video would be celebrated, but I guess we’re there.
Whatever’s cheapest, right?
13. David Kennerly | November 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
I\’m late to this discussion - since the Red Sox parade was streamed and broadcast in multiple places, Steve\’s webcast was just one more angle on the event . However, many lower-profile events are only available via webcast, and even if they are streamed at 200 Kbps with a shaky camera on an unreliable connection, the video quality is really a moot point. If it\’s on, it\’s 100% better quality than if it\’s not on at all. If the parade wasn\’t available anywhere else, Steve\’s webcast would have been gold to Red Sox fans.
A few weeks ago, Fox affiliate KFVS streamed the Southeast Missouri State University Homecoming Parade (link below), which is now available around the world, for free, to anyone who wants to watch it. SEMO fans and alumni don\’t care what it looks/sounds like, they care that they could see it, period. Pretty soon we\’ll be able to watch our kids\’ little league games live on the web when we\’re away from home. Will we complain about quality then?
SEMO homecoming parade: http://kfvs12.com/Global/category.asp?C=113976
14. Contrarian | November 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am
We should.
Why do we concept the idea that “internet=crappy video, but that’s okay”?
Meanwhile, this blog’s talking HD elsewhere.
15. thedetroitchannel | November 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
dude, do you remember the “crappy” quality of cell phones years ago?
i often refer to one of the FIRST cell phones ever. my folks had connections back then.
around 1974 a 5 minute call cost about $10 and 3 minutes were static.
the “quality” thing about delivery will come in time.
“the quality” of the content is in the eyes of the user.
that is what’s gonna kill broadcasters- thinking their anchors on vacation in alaska makes for good tv. vs. a celebration.
16. Contrarian | November 4th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
No, the quality WON’T come, because management will look at little experiments like this and decide that, “Hey, people will watch this with one guy shooting handheld video–why spend any money to do it right?”
See, management doesn’t share your exciting Vision for the Future. All they want is for you to show them how to do it cheaper.
And you are.
17. Safran | November 4th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Again, you present us with a “Vs. Thinking” alert. We didn’t substitute our regular budget for a low budget. We added a person (me) to provide something else. We’re not about cheaper for the sake of cheaper. But we are about better use of your station’s money, especially if that means you get to keep your job.
You may not have noticed, but nobody has screamed “INVEST IN YOURSELVES MORE, PEOPLE” louder than we have. We have been sharp critics of those who take the low-budget way out.
Go ahead and have the last word. I won’t debate you further. We need contrarians, even those who won’t stand behind their words with their names.
18. Contrarian | November 5th, 2007 at 4:49 am
So you did provide a professional-quality web cast of the parade, too, not just your handheld one?
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed