Questions I hope to answer: What makes these three videos engaging? Why did you choose them? What specfic production values can you identify?
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-bVwPRy_no
This video was incredibly engaging, and it's not hard to identify why. There was excellent use of compelling animation. The way the video used thermal heat imaging, animated text, and map graphics automatically came across as appealing and interesting. Going beyond the surface level flash of animation, I chose this video to dissect because I thought the videography including transitions and cuts, was hyper intentional. When listing examples, the b-roll matched the pace of the verbal listing, making it very obvious that the script and the videography were designed for each other. The narrator said, "asphalt, concrete, dark rooftops and tall building", and like clockwork, a visual matching each of those words came up via b-roll. Later on, there continued to be distinctly relevant b-roll as the narrator went on. This is something I think I could improve on. In my video-editing, making the B-roll hyper relevant is something I don't think I've ever strived for, because I never thought that "more-or-less" relevant b-roll was hindering my videos in any way. Noticing how satisfying the matching b-roll to narration is in this video, I think I should definitely try to connect the two more than I have. Shooting b-roll after I get whatever audio I need to would be a start, because, say I'm shooting a profile video, I can take notes of any visuals they might describe, and look for those visual after I'm done profiling them. If I were to shoot b-roll before, I may not capture everything I ought to. B-roll almost always feels like an after thought to me, and I want to make it more united with my narration. From a lighting perspective, mostly sunlight was used, which I found appropriate in this context.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwCkZ1FW0o
This video was more stylized than most news videos I have seen, and definitely more stylized than the videos we have been developing in class. It was entirely constructed from animation, animated photographs, and outside clips. This makes it a different kind of video than traditional multimedia journalism, because it eliminates any opportunity for the videographer to personally decide the camera angles or lighting that could have otherwise impacted the delivery of the story. Even the establishing/closing shots were different than the traditional wide, setting shots that we normally see. That being said, the cuts, animation, pacing, and narration of the video was in complete control of the videographer, and those choices changed the story, causing the storytelling to fall largely to the transitions. I loved the sharp cuts when referencing court cases, because it demonstrated an appropriate sense of urgency. In other words, it contributed to the mood of the video. The opposite of the sharp cuts would be slow, overlapping transitions, which were also utilized in overlapping messages, like when Kavanaugh's testimony was layered with the Roe v. Wade paperwork. I would love to experiment with back-to-back sharp cuts and overlapping visuals. I think a videographer has to be extremely particular in which context they apply these methods though, because they are powerful tools and when used inappropriately, I imagine it would result in a very confused video. I am a strong editor technically, however refining that "editing eye" with identifying when to use cool transitions is something that I need to build. I think consuming more videos with alternative methods and practice is the most effective way to improve that particular skill.
3. https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/1047193139038113792
Linked above is not a youtube link, but a video specifically designed for mobile/social platforms. Videos I'm attracted to happen to have excellent animation, because, yes, yet again this video is conscious of how to effectively use animation to be graphically compelling. This video is unique from the other two in its animation use because it is effective for social media. The bold captions are an automatic tell-tale sign of the mobile-platform design, as the audience can easily understand the video without activating audio, and are able to read the larger print on small screens. It's also a square, which is traditional of social media formatting, particularly Instagram but in this case Twitter.
The content of the video is extremely character driven. It is detailing the backgrounds of two white supremacist supporters, and ultimately provoking surprise from liberal audiences through their backstories. The animation applied, isolating our characters, works because it puts emphasis on the intended subject and keeps a strong focus throughout the video. The characters never drift from the focus of the videographer. The videography essentially combines video with video stills that simulate photography, creating something different and interesting. If it was solely video or solely video stills, the completed piece wouldn't be nearly as compelling. The gradual color desaturation (going from in color to black and white) is a unique touch too, that brings a certain about of drama to the whole video. It is definitely from a news source with a liberal slant, because the drama drawn from the color desaturation, comes across as ominous, evil, etc. So it is not completely unbiased; videography can pose bias comparable to written word.
I would LOVE to create compelling social media, graphically involved videos like this, but currently that is not a platform I am operating on. I know certain apps like Legend and Adobe Spark can help create excellent, text involved video that tell a journalistic story- but I have yet to dive into that branch of content creation!