How to make the perfect YouTube video

[lustyd]

I'd definitely not go as low as 30fps for an action film - it will strobe and jerk like mad.

It’s not an action film, it’s a YouTube video. Most of which are 30fps. Some create 24fps thinking they’re being “cinematic” only to have it look terrible on 60Hz displays the world over. I sometimes shoot 60fps for slowmo but with modern cameras 30 looks fine for most shots. I also rarely bother with 4K, amost nobody consumes in on YouTube anyway according to their stats.

 

[doug748]

Cadoha. How many real sailors bother to watch that. The reality might be YouTubers only really appeal to dreamers. Sailing can be so boring to watch. Well unless your name is Erik. I could listen to Christian Williams without the footage. He’s a cool sailor.

Steveeasy

Yes most of them are derivative crap.

I don't mean Cadoha which has it's own niche and is superbly shot but, I agree, many of these shows are just entertainments for non participants. Lots have central actors that come across as insincere and the begging does start to jar.
Where the content is good and interesting technical matters become largely irrelevant, any smartphone can do the job.

.

 

[lustyd]

Yes most of them are derivative crap.

But how does that differ from any other genre? This is also known as a working formula. People want more of what's good so why not give it to them?

 

[st599]

Would you be so kind to explain what180 degree rule is, what is crossing the line, and why 1/50 v 1/500 and what is an ND filter.

The 180 rule is that a camera can only be used on one side of the action. E.g. in an interview, you expect the interviewer and interviewee to look in opposite directions when in close up, and in travel documentaries, the person or vehicle to be traveling in the same direction in each shot (normally left to right). Crossing the line is when you break this rule.

A Neutral Density filter reduces the light entering a lens without affecting colour. Often on action cameras, combined with a polariser to reduce the amount of reflection. Used when the camera controls won't let you achieve the settings you want.

The shutter speed of a camera is independent of the frame rate chosen. If you shoot at 25fps and 1/25 you get smooth motion but it will be blurred. To counteract this you decrease the shutter speed which increases the sharpness but introduces motion artefacts (like wheels appearing to run backwards, jerky motion and items becoming more and less sharp as the camera or object moves). The convention would be for 25fps, the furthest you should go would be 1/50 (confusingly, this is the 180 degree shutter rule). The further you go the sharper it looks, but the worse the motion artefacts and the harder it is to encode.

Personally I'd shoot at 50 or 60 as this allows 1/100 and better motion portrayal. And if there was any chance of shooting some nightlife, choose the one that matches local mains power.

As for UHD, I think the benefit used to be that YouTube used higher bitrates for content derived from it. Not sure if it still does.

 

[lustyd]

The 180 degree rule most relevant here is the shutter speed one which is certainly what I was talking about when I said to use 1/60 for 30fps video. Shooting at high frame rate usually just adds size to the files, and once inevitably reduced on the timeline won't look any different at all in most scenarios, and occasionally will look artificial as we're all trained to see normal frame rates. It is useful for slowmo and very fast moving things, but then there's plenty of evidence to show that if you want something to look fast this is the worst thing you could do. For sports photography high frame rates are good so you can see detail. For sailing you're much more likely to want to demonstrate the speed and a little motion blur helps with that.

 

[st599]

It’s not an action film, it’s a YouTube video. Most of which are 30fps. Some create 24fps thinking they’re being “cinematic” only to have it look terrible on 60Hz displays the world over. I sometimes shoot 60fps for slowmo but with modern cameras 30 looks fine for most shots. I also rarely bother with 4K, amost nobody consumes in on YouTube anyway according to their stats.

The Jazz Singer has a lot to answer for with regards cinematic frame rates.

Not sure about the 60 Hz. It used to be true, but certainly on my TV, and many I've seen, the panel runs at 100 Hz for most apps and switches to 120, 200 or 240 based on the content.

 

[laika]

Just another note to say that were I ever to make YouTube videos I would probably need to take a crusty old fisherman with a squeezebox and a new-ager with a Tibetan singing bowl along for the ride. I do want music but I'd also want to conform to dogme 95

 

[lustyd]

Not sure about the 60 Hz. It used to be true, but certainly on my TV, and many I've seen, the panel runs at 100 Hz for most apps and switches to 120, 200 or 240 based on the content.

Yes, but the percentage of YouTube watched on actual TVs is miniscule*. The percentage of TVs which auto-switch is also very low, and actually the content is usually decoded by a separate box anyway which will output 60Hz in most cases unless proactively changed by the user. Most users neither know or care that this is possible.

I just checked, and on my main channel it's 2% on TVs out of tens of thousands of views.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

The 180 rule …

Thanks for the explanations, appreciated.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

This is just about the most perfect YouTube sailing video in my opinion.

 

[steve yates]

A question, not a statement and apologies if this has been done to death before: I've not paid much attention to YouTube threads and a quick search suggests that much previous discussion has been about specific videos rather than winning formulae.

I was watching Concerto's latest video (thank you concerto, it's lovely!). In the past I've seen people express a dislike of overlayed muzak and too much talking and from that respect concerto is delivering exactly what many in this audience say they want: a straightforward video record of a "proper" sailing trip.

Personally I have a low attention span. Ideally I want to be engaged by a human context to nice images which means some wry commentary or interaction between crew (for non-solo sailors). Having met concerto at Southampton last year and obviously having followed his posts here I did have some context, but without that (and what I'm asking about here are "general rules") I would have wanted to know "Who's sailing this boat? Why are they going where they're going? How do they feel about it?" One person's witty banter is another's inane chatter so this won't be universal. Music, or at least something music like (drones, or the singing bowl used in one video we discussed recently) add atmosphere, provide continuity for a series of seascapes in an edited journey, and are better than microphone wind noise. But I'm definitely no fan of that tedious copyright-free guitar music some seem to use. "Trust fund kids who bought a boat yesterday stating the blindingly obvious as though it's a revelation" seems to be a frequent complaint and I'm no fan of that either, but on the other most of us like to pick up tricks from seeing others do stuff, so maybe technical stuff as part of the overall narrative framed not as "here's how you do it" but some humorous self-deprecating "I'm trying it this way, let's see if it works!") is good.

What would engage you in a first sailing video to watch a second by the same film maker(s)?

For me, I’m quite fussy. The very first thing, a super short intro/branding clip, like 10secs. Its bad enouh having a one or two minute intro the firsttime, never mind on every vid after if you want to watch the series.
A good story, told succinctly and well, with a relatable human element, like nathans On Kudu or… superb imagery, well filmed and well edited, like Tupaia , or a mix of both, like yacht teleports northwest passage.
oh and the subject/filmmaker has to be likeable, and their voice not grating.

Theres usually a big difference between content shot for an audience, and what is basically personal snaps shot as a home movie, like Concerto’s. On Kudu is one of the very few latter examples that apppeal to me, the story element and engaging subject more than make up for amateurish production. Emotion or engagement trump everything else when it comes to videos.

 

[Uricanejack]

Wear a bikini

 

[Kelpie]

Wear a bikini

Clearly that's where Dylan went wrong.

 

[Minerva]

Yes, but the percentage of YouTube watched on actual TVs is miniscule*. The percentage of TVs which auto-switch is also very low, and actually the content is usually decoded by a separate box anyway which will output 60Hz in most cases unless proactively changed by the user. Most users neither know or care that this is possible.

I just checked, and on my main channel it's 2% on TVs out of tens of thousands of views.

How accurate are those stats though? For example, YouTube thinks I watch near 100% of the videos I consume by phone. Reality is I cast my phone to the TV or my projector at home nearly every time.

I quite believe only 2% use the built in Youtube browser built into TV's, as this function is invariably bobbins.

 

[lustyd]

Their stats are very accurate, although I don't think they can tell if you're mirroring a screen. They certainly can if you're casting to the TV using their app, which would be the better way to do it. They just updated their app for most TVs and Apple TV and it greatly improved

 

[lustyd]

Clearly that's where Dylan went wrong.

He went wrong in a lot of ways, but wearing a bikini wasn't one of them. He was also a few years too early to properly monetise through YouTube and Patreon which is a shame, although Delos started 12 years ago so the opportunity was clearly there. If he were starting today and had a better attitude he'd be wildly successful and probably making decent money from it.

 

[Kelpie]

He went wrong in a lot of ways, but wearing a bikini wasn't one of them. He was also a few years too early to properly monetise through YouTube and Patreon which is a shame, although Delos started 12 years ago so the opportunity was clearly there. If he were starting today and had a better attitude he'd be wildly successful and probably making decent money from it.

I used to be a real fan of Dylan.
But when he started slagging off Delos it got sour very quickly.
At that point Delos were part way across the Indian Ocean producing incredible videos of amazing places, whilst Dylan was pottering around dull places whose names he couldn't even be bothered to pronounce properly.
He seemed to think the only reason anybody watched Delos was because of the eye candy, ignoring the truly impressive sailing they were doing at that time.
It just seemed bitter.
He remains one of only two sailing channels who I have financially supported though (the other one being the Sailing Brothers).

I think a huge breakthrough with sailing channels was that they could appeal to non sailors. Back in Dylan's day we all assumed that the only people watching were sad old blokes with boats of their own. The likes of Vagabond showed that a market of millions of viewers existed, who just want to live vicariously and have no intention of owning a boat themselves, so you only need a tiny fraction of them to chip in and you can make money.

And you don't need to be a Vagabond type channel to make it work- Cadoha are doing well without leaving the UK, and you wouldn't say Mads, or Tally Ho, or that crazy Viking guy in the Contessa, are exactly going for the bikini & eye candy market.

 

[lustyd]

I agree I think there's a huge audience out there wanting to watch well made content of any type. Delos and LaVagabonde are lifestyle channels for sure and fun to watch whether they're sailing or not. I can't work out what Cadoha are trying to be, and not sure they can either, but they're throwing in bikini shots, photoshopping thumbnails to make it not look like the UK, a bit of maintenance, a bit of lifestyle, and a lot of sponsored content. I hope they work it out at some point, they have talent at filming and editing and clearly understand storytelling, but they need to work out what the channel is about aside from a source of income.

 

[Kelpie]

I agree I think there's a huge audience out there wanting to watch well made content of any type. Delos and LaVagabonde are lifestyle channels for sure and fun to watch whether they're sailing or not. I can't work out what Cadoha are trying to be, and not sure they can either, but they're throwing in bikini shots, photoshopping thumbnails to make it not look like the UK, a bit of maintenance, a bit of lifestyle, and a lot of sponsored content. I hope they work it out at some point, they have talent at filming and editing and clearly understand storytelling, but they need to work out what the channel is about aside from a source of income.

I've never really got in to Vagabond, and Delos seem to have gone down the same path. It's hard to keep it interesting once you have a kid.

I quite like Cadoha. Not sure why, they don't really do anything, but they seem nice and the videos are well made.

 

[lustyd]

Agree, if they can work out what they are trying to be they'll be a great channel, they're not there yet and although I did like them, my other half has taken to shouting at the TV any time they're on and I'm starting to see her point. If they want to be the "British sailors" they'll need to start showing Britain without pretending it's like the Caribbean and editing it so heavily. If they want to be a refit channel they'll need to stop bodging in as much random stuff as they can find and tidy the boat. If they want to be a bikini channel they'll need to go somewhere warmer. If they want to be Countryfile they need to stop showing all the boat stuff in between dog walks. If they want to be eco-warriors they need to stop consuming so much stuff and use considerably less diesel and gas (although "electric" galley, they almost exclusively cook on gas these days). If they want to be a fishing channel then...

The list goes on, and that's ignoring the filler episodes where literally nothing happens for 15 minutes as if they'll be fired from YouTube for not posting weekly (the algorithm doesn't actually care). I really want to see them get there, I think they have the skill and they're an easy watch