Is most user-generated video content still junk compared to video content that is professionally made?

  • Most of the time this applies.

    Yes, I would say. higher budget generally = better quality of content, though it depends.

  • The wording of this is weird

    Most of it is... That should be fairly obvious due to the immense bloody size of websites like Youtube.

  • Yes

    With a higher budget it's natural that better quality stuff can be produced; most low-budget movies I have seen have been absolutely terrible.

  • I do agree that most user-generated video content is still junk, compared to video content that is professionally made, because the ability to maintain the right lighting and camerawork, while videotaping, is very hard, even for the skilled cameraman.

    Keeping proper lighting is a task that is very difficult to get, without an expensive lighting set to use while videotaping. Even for the most skilled cameraman, keeping the camera still, while following the actor through even the simplest of scenes, is very difficult. And, the lighting is one of the biggest challenges. The light will change, as the cameraman moves to keep up with the motion of the actor. All of these things are very hard to accomplish for the amateur home cameraman.

    Posted by: LimpingChauncey64
  • Yes, I think most user-generated video is junk, as they're just talking or demonstrating a video about how good they are at something.

    Most user-generated video contains content, similar to the following: "I will be showing you how to make the best chocolate cake. All of my family and friends say it's the best. I add a very special ingredient that my grandmother passed down for generations, and I will tell you what that very special ingredient is. So, you can have the best chocolate cake in your neighborhood".

    Posted by: DillanD
  • Most amateur video is not concise and well thought out before it is shot, so it is not comparable in quality to professionally made video.

    Let's face it. Most user-generated video is more about the user, than it is the video. Too much of what is on the Internet is badly shot, rambling and incoherent. Little thought seems to go into overall layout and storyline. User-generated video is more about flattering the vanity of the shooter, and less about genuine entertainment of the viewer. While there may be some exceptions, most amateur video on the Internet today is junk, pure and simple.

    Posted by: KnowledgeableWilford94
  • Homemade video content does not compare to professionally produced movies, because amateurs lack the same skill.

    Most user-generated video content is junk, as compared to video content that is made by professionals. Amateurs lack the education and training that comes from a professional. Every now and again, an amateur may be able to entertain an audience with quips from the content, but the video as a whole cannot compare.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • More often than not user generated content is a waste of everyone's time.

    It's wonderful that there is a platform for amateur video artists but the majority of those using it aren't producing anything worth watching. Some are simply posting nonsense in the hopes that somehow they will be "discovered" when a video goes viral.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • While there are some user-generated videos that have risen to stardom, it is definitely apparent that most user-generated videos are still junk.

    There are many popular and well-shot videos on YouTube and other sites, but most user-generated videos are junk, niche-type jokes, personal rants and such. It is overwhelmingly difficult to find the quality among the crap. Copyright infringement is also everywhere, and many teenagers also find that posting videos is fun, but in reality they are just posting random videos that hardly make sense.

    Posted by: ToyMatt
  • I do not feel that user-generated videos have any more of a likelihood to be junk than videos that are professionally made.

    The actual video quality of a professional video may be better, but I do not think that guarantees better content than user-generated videos. Yes, there are many user-generated videos that are made by children, teens, and people that are just killing time and not taking things too seriously. However, there are also many videos that are not professional and that have content that is very valuable and useful.

    Posted by: StevyDemon
  • Many user-generated stuff also shows the product of one's genuine interest.

    Work from studios are usually driven through profit, ratings and fanbase and while its true that there are a lot of 'junk' UGC around there's also the fact that most of these content are a product of the user's passion and genuine interest on the subject matter. They work with what they have and without asking for anything in return.

  • Many homemade youtube videos are great.

    On the other hand, I find hardly any professional TV shows interesting these days.

  • No, because "junk" is a matter of taste and perspective.

    Due to advancements in the quality of lenses and lower costs in the production of electronics, professional level cameras are becoming much more common for the average person. While a lot of user-generated stuff may be considered junk by some, due to the nature of the content, the image-quality is catching up with professionally made content. Content being "junk" is a matter of opinion and changes with time and audience. If we judge just on a purely image-quality basis, then user-generated video content is on par with professionally made content.

    Posted by: KnownEvan
  • User-generated content is not nearly as polished as professionals, but some of it is priceless.

    Of course, the average person cannot produce a Steven Spielberg-quality film
    from home. But, some of the babies, kittens, dogs or talking birds captured on home video are just amazing to watch. Things like this cannot be planned,
    so there really is no way to produce them with professional quality.

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • I believe that user-generated video content is not junk, in comparison to professionally-produced content but, instead, it sets a new standard for video.

    Junk and art are relative concepts. Notions of what constitutes art, and what does not, are always in flux. To make video a more democratic medium does not involve a loss of quality, but merely a change. It's always difficult to adjust to rapid change in culture, but its development continues.

    Posted by: ZippyHank
  • Yes, user video can be just good as the professionals, if someone takes the time to make it so.

    User video programs, if used correctly, are just as good as professional programs. You do not need to pay the high cost of professional quality for everything. Sometimes things that are less expensive are just as good. If you work with the product, it can work to your benefit, and you'll be happy with the results.

    Posted by: WillowsErv
  • Yes, despite some viral videos, most videos are junk.

    Video that is professionally made is not automatically superior to amateur video. In fact, independent filmmakers have contributed many good videos. However, most people will still post random videos with no production values because video cameras are cheap and youtube is free. In other words, if they had to pay for the video (just like professionals do), they'd think twice about posting it.

    Posted by: 5h4bbyCorr
  • No, user videos are just as good as professionally made video content.

    User made videos can be and are on the same level as professionally made video content. This is mainly because there is so much affordable technology out there for the every day person that years ago was not available on the open market or within the normal persons price range.

    Posted by: eastandnow

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.