As I get more into making video features and traveling to events or to visit other BCP members, I find my videos getting longer. Whether to tell a more complete story, or just to showcase the greater amount of footage I've collected, they are certain longer than they used to be.

I noticed one comment though recently on Winds of Texas that read: "I loved this. Watched the whole thing."

I thought: Was it so long that watching the whole thing is remarkable?

So as I foray into making longer "mini-films" I must ask: Do you, my primary audience, enjoy a longer viewing? Or shorts less than 5 minutes?

My plan for High Sierra has been to reach 40 minutes. I'm not so sure of the marketability of that in this new short attention span era. Perhaps the medium is important too: TV vs tablet or phone. Couch or toilet?

I personally prefer longer IF it's made correctly. Honestly (not to toot your horn, Zane ) The Winds of Texas easily falls under this category. Theres a story to follow, it allows us (viewers) to fully immerse ourselves into that world.

That being said, I'm personally not creative enough to make a "longer" video and keep attention. It definitely is all about how you create it and tell the story.

I'll take em as long as you're willing to make em, Zane. However, the question is who is your target audience? For example, Flying Magazine is hosting a video contest right now, but submissions can't be more than 3 minutes long.

If you're trying to appeal to those of us who are already here, I'm guessing we'll watch as much as you got. Trying to appeal to the wider world? I fear that the next generation's attention span is limited to 160 characters or an 8-second Vine.

FWIW, your videos are also high-caliber enough to make the minutes fly by. I've made some of my own 3 minute videos that felt a lot longer and harder to watch than some of your stuff that has run 6+.

If you've got entertaining content, I say let it be as long as it needs to be.

As long as you don't waste 10 minutes of footage on taxiing to holding point Bravo-1 and flying in real time to the local river bar.

Given the quality of your latest videos, I'd expect to pay for a feature length film

I agree with other posters that the best length depends very heavily on the quality of the video and how deeply the storyline hooks me. I always fast forward through long sections of flight at several thousand feet AGL shot through a wide angle lens. There really isn't anything to see unless you were on the flight and the clip triggers something personal. Watching people eat after a flight also leaves me cold. I'm not a big fan of preflight work, long taxis or other "footage" that isn't helping tell a story or advance an idea. I can put up with a scene that lingers on a view if it is really spectacular, but delicate piano music overlaid on an average sunset makes me reach for the fast forward too. Anything more than 4 minutes either needs spectacular action, a compelling story, knock my socks off scenery or all of these elements.

There are still many of us who are limited in the amount of speed our internet connection allows.

Most YouTube videos will not play through for me any more without erring out due to connection speed, even set to extremely low resolution settings.

(Today's speed test is .62 Mbps up, .41Mbps down. Better than dial up, but not much.)

If the video is real good make it long, if it's slow or boring for those viewing that don't have the connection you do, make it sort.

ATXCitab wrote:I personally prefer longer IF it's made correctly. Honestly (not to toot your horn, Zane ) The Winds of Texas easily falls under this category. Theres a story to follow, it allows us (viewers) to fully immerse ourselves into that world.

X2 ATXCitab

Av8r3400 wrote:(Today's speed test is .62 Mbps up, .41Mbps down. Better than dial up, but not much.)

Do you mean Kbps? Because 41MB/s is extremely fast for any residential broadband connection.

Zzz wrote:

Av8r3400 wrote:(Today's speed test is .62 Mbps up, .41Mbps down. Better than dial up, but not much.)

Do you mean Kbps? Because 41MB/s is extremely fast for any residential broadband connection.

Maybe he means mega-bits per second?

Get your bifocals on Z, he said 0.41 Mbps... That is 2 orders of magnitude slower than without the decimal before the 4. The aging pilot population will either be good for optometrists, or it will lead to lots of miscommunication!

Flyhound wrote:Get your bifocals on Z, he said 0.41 Mbps... That is 2 orders of magnitude slower than without the decimal before the 4. The aging pilot population will either be good for optometrists, or it will lead to lots of miscommunication!

Ill-positioned line break on Tapatalk!

Sounds like the consensus is: If it sucks, keep it short!

As others have said, with the quality of photography and editing that Zane's producing, the longer the better.

One of my favorite Youtube channels (besides backcountrypilot.org of course) is the vintage/exotic car-themed Petrolicious. Here's an example 8+ minute clip focusing on one car that never feels long. Beautiful work:

If I'm reading a thread in "Community" I don't often click on a Video if it is more than 3 minutes long. If I'm reading a "Feature article" I click on the videos no matter how long they are then decide if I keep watching or not within about 2 or 3 minutes.

Flyhound wrote:I agree with other posters that the best length depends very heavily on the quality of the video and how deeply the storyline hooks me. I always fast forward through long sections of flight at several thousand feet AGL shot through a wide angle lens. There really isn't anything to see unless you were on the flight and the clip triggers something personal. Watching people eat after a flight also leaves me cold. I'm not a big fan of preflight work, long taxis or other "footage" that isn't helping tell a story or advance an idea. I can put up with a scene that lingers on a view if it is really spectacular, but delicate piano music overlaid on an average sunset makes me reach for the fast forward too. Anything more than 4 minutes either needs spectacular action, a compelling story, knock my socks off scenery or all of these elements.

This pretty much sums it up for me, as well.

A good back story with a combination of stills, short interview clips and hours of jaw-dropping HD flying video is always the best!

That Petrolicious piece was awesome. It had great footage, great editing, and the engaging interview pieces to glue it together.

I have major ADD when I'm sitting at my machine. I always have no less than 6 browser tabs open, and various other apps from email to code editors. There is no video awesome enough to make me stop fiddling with computer stuff, sit still, and watch it all the way through. However, the good ones I usually add to "watch later" and watch them intently on my 46" while laying on the couch, case in the point the Ketchikan bush pilot history series.

The poll votes are pretty much neck and neck for long vs short!

I'm pretty much going to repeat what everyone else has said. If it's just an action cam. view out the window (like my own videos), keep it to 5 minutes or less of the high points. A well done event report or documentary can be as long as necessary to keep presenting new info.

Phil

It all depends on how long the song is.

I've never seen a video from inside the cockpit, or mounted outside the plane that even comes close to matching the real thing.....this is the nature of lenses, and the human eye has the best one ever made.

Now, videos that tell an interesting story....that's different.

Flying over a canyon.....not so much, keep it REAL short.

MTV

As least as long as it takes to tell the story, and not much longer.

CC kept it short here, and still told the story: