YouTube is testing a feature that lets you change camera angles on the fly

[Shawn Knight]

YouTube has launched a new experiment that puts the viewer in control of the action… well, sort of. The feature I’m referring to allows users to switch between multiple different camera angles while a video is playing (and I do mean “video” as there’s currently only one clip that supports the feature).

To demonstrate Choose Your View, YouTube partnered with popular indie artist Madilyn Bailey. The technical team used her performance during YouTube Music Night last December to create a multi-angle video.

To switch views, simply click on one of the four different camera feed thumbnails on the right side of the clip as its playing. Alternately, viewers can use the left and right arrow keys on their keyboard or numbers 1-4 to switch cameras.

YouTube suggests holding down each key for a smoother transition although I didn’t run into any issues when testing it out. Switching between feeds felt natural, almost as if I was watching a live performance on television except I was the video director.

While certainly a step forward, it’s worth pointing out that YouTube isn’t the first company to try their hand at multi-view videos as names like Streamweaver and Switchcam immediately come to mind.

Of course, trying to implement a feature like this is tough – just ask Switchcam as they’ve already shut down. But if any video sharing service has the power and versatility to pull it off, it’s YouTube. Just last month, for example, it was revealed that YouTube would soon be adding support for 360-degree videos. 

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/59647-youtube-testing-feature-you-change-camera-angles-fly.html

 

[stewi0001]

Technically the first people to do multi-view was the porn industry. Which is why on most (if not all) DVD player remotes, you will see a switch angle button or something to that affect.

 

[Guest]

20 years ago tested many 360 videos and now. How fly the time.

 

[davislane1]

Technically the first people to do multi-view was the porn industry. Which is why on most (if not all) DVD player remotes, you will see a switch angle button or something to that affect.

It was the only viable way to save the industry from ***** cameramen.

 

[Guest]

If you where annoyed by the cameraman I think you got you priorities mixed up.

 

[davislane1]

If you where annoyed by the cameraman I think you got you priorities mixed up.

Not all camera work is executed equally. You can be laser focused on your "priority", but it won't make a lick of difference if the camera work is shoddy. A good example would be those POV films some studios do. You know, the ones shot like X-rated sequels to Cloverfield.

With that, I withdraw from the porn commentary before the mods or, God forbid, Captain Cranky show up. This is, after all, supposed to be a family-friendly website.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

I don't get why this is so hard. You set up X number of cameras around the subject and record 5 different angles simultaneously. Obviously, you couldn't do this as easy for an action movie but for live performances shot at one location in 1 day it seems elementary.

What would be more interesting is mixing angles and different subjects instead of just 5 angles of a single subject. So, if you wanted to focus exclusively on the drummer in a band versus another member you could. That would be very cool. Watch more closely the subject you are most interested in.

Maybe this is what they did, I haven't watched the video...

 

[davislane1]

What would be more interesting is mixing angles and different subjects instead of just 5 angles of a single subject. So, if you wanted to focus exclusively on the drummer in a band versus another member you could. That would be very cool. Watch more closely the subject you are most interested in..

That would be fantastic, especially if there were always a "technical" angle, for those interested in transcribing or learning the music. Unfortunately, it would make for a poor viewing experience for a live audience and larger expenses for musicians, depending on venue. A cool idea, but ultimately impractical.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

That would be fantastic, especially if there were always a "technical" angle, for those interested in transcribing or learning the music. Unfortunately, it would make for a poor viewing experience for a live audience and larger expenses for musicians, depending on venue. A cool idea, but ultimately impractical.

I am not so sure why you think it's impractical. Think about it. When a band like Metallica shoots a concert for a DVD/Blu-Ray release they are already recording from multiple cameras. But they slice and dice all day long until they think they have the best of everything. I don't think it's a question of being impractical or too expensive unless you are giving the most weight in expenses to the final editing of actual video footage. It seems within reason to me just to release all the video streams from all the cameras and let the end-user decide how to watch it. Infinite viewing experiences. "Oh wow, I didn't see that the first time I watched the DVD". Yeah, because you were viewing a different stream at this exact moment last time.

This would not make sense for live-action movies like Rambo because each scene is telling a story in a very precise manner for the most part. But for live events, it makes sense to me.

I think I am getting excited about what DVD promised years ago though. I don't think it ever became popular. It would quadruple the number of DVDs/Blu-Rays and that would translate into higher costs for the consumer. So, yes there would be added cost but since the masses probably wouldn't care about it, nobody gets it I guess.

 

[davislane1]

I am not so sure why you think it's impractical. Think about it. When a band like Metallica shoots a concert for a DVD/Blu-Ray release they are already recording from multiple cameras. But they slice and dice all day long until they think they have the best of everything. I don't think it's a question of being impractical or too expensive unless you are giving the most weight in expenses to the final editing of actual video footage. It seems within reason to me just to release all the video streams from all the cameras and let the end-user decide how to watch it. Infinite viewing experiences. "Oh wow, I didn't see that the first time I watched the DVD". Yeah, because you were viewing a different stream at this exact moment last time.

Adding more cameras costs them more in labor costs, equipment costs, and clutters the stage. The latter two may be inconsequential for special occasions, especially purpose serving events like DVD shows. The labor costs are another thing entirely. Generally speaking, paying the venue staff to setup the additional equipment can easily add several thousand dollars to the band's cost for putting on the show.

I'm not in the music industry, so I am basing my assumption off of what I've heard from a family member who is. For instance, he and the group he was in played a set with Sting last year when he was doing his NYC show. When asked why the set wasn't being filmed, his response was what the venue was charging a several thousand dollars for a single camera operator and not allowing either the band or Sting to use their own guys. This was in addition to other stories he's told in the past where union-run venues threatened penalties for not granting exclusive setup duties (the employees setup your stuff, not you) to the workers at extortion-level labor rates.

Now, I don't know what the situation is outside of NYC, but it seems evident to me that throwing a bunch of additional equipment and/or personnel on stage isn't always the brightest move financially.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

Adding more cameras costs them more in labor costs, equipment costs, and clutters the stage. The latter two may be inconsequential for special occasions, especially purpose serving events like DVD shows. The labor costs are another thing entirely. Generally speaking, paying the venue staff to setup the additional equipment can easily add several thousand dollars to the band's cost for putting on the show.

I'm not in the music industry, so I am basing my assumption off of what I've heard from a family member who is. For instance, he and the group he was in played a set with Sting last year when he was doing his NYC show. When asked why the set wasn't being filmed, his response was what the venue was charging a several thousand dollars for a single camera operator and not allowing either the band or Sting to use their own guys. This was in addition to other stories he's told in the past where union-run venues threatened penalties for not granting exclusive setup duties (the employees setup your stuff, not you) to the workers at extortion-level labor rates.

Now, I don't know what the situation is outside of NYC, but it seems evident to me that throwing a bunch of additional equipment and/or personnel on stage isn't always the brightest move financially.

I think you partly answered your own question. If the Venue is raping you and restricting your freedoms that much, I think it's time to find a new venue? There is no added costs for muscians filming a DVD using x number of cameras(because they were gonna use x numbers of cameras anyway to make the DVD) to include all footage from all x number of cameras. that's all I am saying. You gave what, in my opinion, is a way out of the ordinary example. Most venue's, I am guessing, wouldn't restrict you using your own cameras and camera crew. Hell, with GoPro and the technology we have today, it should only be getting less expensive, not more. But I'll grant the possibility of off-the-wall exceptions as you have graciously pointed out.