I think you're missing the point Noggin.
Clearly this is the media guy filming the radio interviews with SP on his iPhone to put it on YouTube.
Even with a DSLR, an image stabiliser and an external mic (often shitter than an iPhone mic) you'd still have the microphone in front of his face and the wobbling CCFC board behind him.
Plus you're overcomplicating something which is essentially just Stephen Pressley giving a radio interview. IE, you'd then have to digitise the rushes, edit them, and export them. What's the point when you can just film it on your iphone and upload it to YouTube straight away? Not to mention the hassle of organising an extra person to come with their DSLR kit and giving them a free season ticket!
As a consumer of this I'd much rather hear what Stephen Pressley has to say at 17:00 on a matchday then wait until 18:00 for a prettier picture - I barely ever look at it anyway.
I'm not missing the point, you seem to be saying its not possible to do it perfectly quickly and without extra effort (which is fair enough) so might as well just do it terribly (which isn't fair enough) it's possible to do it decently with very little extra effort.
Not sure what you mean about the wobbling ccfc board behind him, isn't he just sitting in front of an advertising hoarding which looks like it's moving around because the guy holding the camera can't keep his hands still? (edit sorry I see that was in regards to another interview, holding up an advertising hoarding is much more effort than using a dslr rather than an iphone.
I don't think im over complicating it at all, yes it requires extra effort to do it my way but you are talking a couple of minutes tops and the difference in results is immense. You seem to be the one over complicating it with the talk of digitising rushes, editing and exporting, you can record on a dslr, transfer it to a laptop and upload straight to youtube, 1 min job obviously the upload to you tube takes a little longer at 720p quality but I assume all stadia have wireless? as every game has multiple people with dslrs and laptops ready to upload their photos straight to getty and the like. We aren't asking for a polished, perfectly lit, expertly edited clip, we are asking for watchable quality where you can easily hear the questions and answers.
It's also complete nonsense suggesting a dslr external mic is often shitter than an iphone mic. These days hobbyists have cameras cable of taking video thats good enough to use in hollywood movies, it's obviously not hollywood's first choice though of course.
Of course the important part of the interview is the sound so your point about not wanting to wait for a pretty picture might be fair if thats all it was but the sound is abysmal, the absolute least we should be expecting from an interview is to be able to hear well and not have loud wind noise, the other interview is even worse than the Pressley one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia1BILWI7w4 the wind is significantly louder than both the interviewer and interviewee. an proper external mic prevents this.
The Average person watched 36% of the Dan Seaborne video and 41% of the Stephen Pressley video, I'd have thought there aren't many people coming across these videos randomly, they are mostly people who want to hear what they want to say, so watching such a small percentage of already very short videos is very poor and I'm positive the quality has a big part to play in that. I turned off the seaborne video after 20 seconds or so as it simply wasn't worth it.
