What makes television television?

"I remember back in the 1980s, my friends who worked in TV production were unimpresssed by the appearance of cheap, easy-to-use video cameras," writes Michael Parsons in a comment article about video on the web. "Scroll forward 20 years and the cameras have got cheaper and lighter, the editing software even simpler, the bandwidth to share the content is cheaply available, and companies like YouTube have made it easy for people to share content"

Click here to read the full article

In case you hadn't noticed, there's an awful lot of video sloshing around the web. There's all the viral stuff, of course: cute kids fast cars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P6UU6m3cqk), (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-r2-IfcIJU) and so on.  There's also loads of expensive TV and film programming, as well as a lot of grumpy copyright holders. How will it all shake out?

I remember back in the 1980s, my friends who worked in TV production were unimpresssed by the appearance of cheap, easy-to-use video cameras. They didn't want low-cost video cameras on their turf. They were trained technicians who specialised in camera work, editing, or sound recording. They had no time for Jack-and-Jills-of-all-trades who, without training, did a bit of everything, at a fraction of the cost.

They agreed that given modern equipment, everyone 'could have a go' at making TV but they questioned the demand for out-of-focus camera work, lousy sound, and confusingly edited programmes. They liked to point out the terrible lesson of the home movie. People had been able to make home movies using Super 8 film cameras for years, but that didn't mean anybody actually wanted to watch them.

Scroll forward 20 years and the cameras have got cheaper and lighter, the editing software even simpler, the bandwidth to share the content is cheaply available, and companies like YouTube have made it easy for people to share content. Meanwhile broadcast television standards have fallen. Well, that's what those friends of mine reckon. Shows, they say, are poorly lit, you can't hear the dialogue in dramas and there has been a steady decline in the overall technical standards of much of the broadcast television we watch. I believe them, but the reality is that much of what they're talking about is stuff that's too subtle for me to catch. If TV broke, I didn't notice.

It seems a great irony that cheap, blurry, low-definition PC video is exploding on the web at exactly the same time that consumers are investing in high-definition equipment to watch pin-sharp images on expensive flat panel TVs. People, it seems, are perfectly able to cope with varying levels of moving image quality. They're able to enjoy a James Bond premier at Leicester Square or peer at the six-inch screen on the back of a seat in the economy section of a Boeing 747. If the content is compelling enough, such as David Armand's extraordinary mime skills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TM3GbxaNLI), we're quite happy to watch it in blurry resolution. The content is what matters.

Now everybody wants to join the web video party. Broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN are streaming video content online and traditional newspapers like the New York Times are also getting in on the act. Over at CNET.co.uk we've been playing around with video and it's proved some of the most popular content on our site (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/video/0,139101590,39032354-1,00.htm). 

There was a time when screen resolutions and bandwidth gave people the feeling that any online video would be hobbled by the small screen. You couldn't use the usual techniques of television. You were stuck with a fixed camera, a presenter who didn't move much and production values resembling a kidnapping ransom clip.

Those days are gone. The BBC puts a lot of its original broadcast programming online and it works fine.  The net is full of high-quality movie trailers that people seem happy to watch in four-inch viewers. The only rule seems to be boring stuff gets ignored.

The David Armand clip I linked to above became famous on YouTube in an earlier incarnation shot with low production values. I linked to a performance he did as part of the latest Secret Policeman's Ball, a snazzy broadcast production, because it's fun to see him joined on stage by Natalie Imbruglia, but the performance is just as funny in the more low-key recording.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk7KhIJfNRI&mode=related&search)

Just as 'amateur' musicians locked in their bedrooms with digital gear have mastered the resources of 'professional' musicians, bedroom auters will appropriate more and more of the techniques and resources of the traditional TV production companies. There will be a continuum, ranging from lousy home movies to The West Wing, but more and more people will participate. The wisdom of crowds and the joy of Google will mean that an increasing amount of the good stuff will float to the top. Already people use the net as a direct path to the better material: illegal BitTorrents of their favourite Simpsons episodes, pirate versions of major motion pictures and simple, great viral clips like the ones capturing David Armand's performance.

This must be a sad time if you think TV should be controlled by a special, professional caste, but it's a great time to be a low-cost content producer with creative talent.

Michael Parsons is editor of CNET.co.uk, the personal technology and consumer electronics website. He was editorial director of the Industry Standard Europe and European correspondent for The Red Herring magazine, and spent five years working in Silicon Valley and worrying about technology. He can be reached at michael.parsons@cnet.co.uk