While live streaming isn’t right for everyone, it might be right for your church, so I thought you might want to know the things I’ve learned over the last several years that I wish I’d known at the beginning.
1. Encoders vs. capture cards
When I first started live-streaming, I was doing so from my tiny office, so a web cam was the perfect choice to get video into my computer. I didn’t even think about capturing and encoding. I just plugged in my little webcam or used the onboard iSight camera and fired up the software that the live streaming host told me to use—Adobe Flash Media Live Encoder (FMLE).
It wasn’t until I started trying to understand the process of live-streaming for churches that already had equipment used for IMAG and recording, like my own, that I started to see what was lacking in my approach.
I had used Firewire cameras, interfaces for SD, and other capture devices to record HD onto a computer, but getting FMLE to recognize HD live was harder, especially with the computers we had back then.
2. Software vs. hardware
I’d considered software like FMLE and Wirecast the only ways to encode live until I did a freelance gig shooting a cheerleading competition. I brought my MacBook Pro because I knew I was going to be in charge of the live-stream. I assumed we would be hooking up the video system to my laptop and encoding with it.
During set up, one of the other videographers, pulled out a Teradek Vidiu encoder and hooked it up. To my surprise, it connected directly to the network, so my laptop was just used to monitor the live-stream and do troubleshooting.
Not long after, I got to play with and review a few of the other hardware encoders on the market and found that they varied in ability as well as price point. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
3. Why pay for a live streaming host?
In the beginning, my choices were a paid live-streaming host or one which interrupted the live-stream at random times with video ads. It seemed obvious which you’d choose.
Then YouTube started doing live-streaming, at first for big channels, then smaller ones and non-profits, and finally for all. I didn’t see any reason why you’d pay for a live-streaming host when the world’s largest video platform would let you do it for free.
Then Facebook entered the fray; it seemed to offer another reason not to pay for live-streaming.
That is, until the problems with “free” started rearing their ugly heads.
First, it was copyright. Or rather, the lack of customer service you could depend on when it came to dealing with a copyright complaint. I had specific, written permission to use a song by a group that was unsigned at the time they gave it to me, but there was no one to tell at YouTube when my videos started getting flagged.
Appealing to the automated system, with evidence, didn’t get me anywhere.
I also started to hear of churches that had live streaming licenses from the likes of CCLI that had similar problems.
Soon, another problem became clear. YouTube and Facebook ALSO live-stream, but it’s not their main business. So, the problems that live-streaming hosts had overcome because of demand from their customers, were less pressing to companies who had a lot of other fires to put out.
Finally, it was clear that if you had a problem, your only hope for fixing it was fixing it yourself with the help of, sometimes difficult to understand, written tutorials. No one was there to walk you through the problem and find a solution.
4. Just because it’s legal, that doesn’t mean every host will allow it
We’ve talked about copyright. Assuming you have permission, either directly or through a license, that doesn’t mean a host MUST allow you to live-stream. In fact, stating any belief could get you into hot water with them.
There’s no law against stating how your church feels about gay marriage or any of a number of other politically charged issues, but that doesn’t mean that live-streaming hosts MUST allow your church to use their platform. Churches have been kicked off of platforms for saying what they believe. Legal doesn’t mean “allowed by companies”, just “allowed by the government”.
5. Bare minimum is good for proof of concept, but never as a permanent solution
The first article I ever wrote was about live-streaming for free. At the time, I imagined that it would be the kind of system that some churches could get away with, but over time, I’ve come to see the problems with a “bare minimum” system.
First, it becomes the system that never gets upgraded until something breaks. So, as your team realizes the challenges of the system, it’s a harder sell to get church leadership to agree to upgrades to a system that works already (even if it just barely does).
Oftentimes, a proof of concept system using a webcam or a phone won’t show details (because of the lack of a zoom) or allow for switching between shots. So you’re stuck with a shot that’s too wide or one that’s too close. The result is the worst of both worlds.
6. No matter what your level of experience, there's always more to learn
If you think you know everything there is to know about any subject, that only proves you don’t.
I was surprised at how easy it was to live-stream, when I first started, but that was because I had a very controlled narrow set of possible options. Live-streaming with a single webcam, on a small network, to very few viewers is a lot simpler than live-streaming a large event, with a large system, with redundant hardware, to a large group.
The basic principles are the same, but every complication adds an exponential number of possible problems
Like all of tech, things are constantly changing, so what was true before, may not be true now. There’s always more to learn.
7. Some people won't listen to experts, no matter the differential in experience
No matter who you are, there are some people who won’t listen to advice gleaned from countless others. They think they’re somehow different, that they have unique experiences or knowledge.
This is certainly the case with live-streaming. Whether it’s advice gleaned from talking to hundreds of other churches or best practices you’ve picked up through personal experience, some people just thing they’re different. They don’t NEED better internet upload speeds; 400kbps will work fine for their 720p stream (even if it won’t). They don’t NEED a live streaming license; they’ve never been caught (until they do). They don’t NEED to use a camera that delivers more than a single wide shot (until something happens out of frame or there’s a small detail they can’t get with the wide shot).
Only their experience will teach them they’re wrong.
8. Tech may increase, but artistry will always be a requirement.
It’s easy to get G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome) when you do tech. “If only I had a Mevo” or “A Teradek Vidiu would be so much better than using this old computer with OBS” you might think. When it comes down to it, once you’ve got the basics down, new gear won’t help as much as using what you have in a better way.
If an amateur and a pro both have the same gear, the pro will get the most out of it. Being a professional tends to mean that you know how to use the gear you have, so an SD camcorder in the hands of a master will give better (albeit lower resolution) video than a 4k cinema camera in the hands of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. So, learn the craft. Once you’ve learned the artistic aspects of shooting, directing, and encoding (there’s an art to choosing the right bit rate, too), you’ll see the limitations of what you have and better know how to upgrade it.
Either way, the skills will transfer even if there’s a bit of a learning curve with new gear. So, invest time and energy in doing the best that you can with what you have. Learn it inside and out. Figure out hacks and work-arounds. Above all, master the artistic aspects of live-streaming and you’ll be able to do what few others can with less than they have. That’s a valuable asset regardless of your role or activity.
