![]()
Sunday, September 27, 2020
Up to this point, our churchâs online services have been custom content created for an online experience. Iâm eager to compare this with them streaming an in-person service. At last, I can. Though Iâve experienced streaming from other churches, now I can contrast our custom-produced content with a livestream.
This Sunday I find a link to our churchâs in-person service. Iâm not sure if this is the first week they posted the service online or merely the first time Iâve found it. Regardless, Iâm excited to watch. I yearn to experience a ânormalâ serviceâalbeit from afar. This is something I havenât been able to do with our church in seven months.
I applaud their ongoing efforts at providing meaningful Sunday experiences each week. But watching a video of an actual service feels like moving one step closer to reclaiming what once was.
The video starts with a shot of our worship team who open with a song. The service proceeds as usual: an initial worship set, announcements and opening prayer, message, concluding worship set, and blessing to send us on our way. Though they said they would tweak the order of the service to better align with pandemic protocols, I donât see a difference.
When the first service is over, a series of informational slides cycle through, repeating for the next thirty minutes, as we wait for the second service to begin. I like this approach because viewers who want to make sure they can connect before the service starts will see these slides to let them know theyâre in the right place.
As the time to start the second service draws near, background music begins, alerting us that somethingâs about to happen. In a few minutes, the repeating slides give way to a welcome message and then the worship team appears. The next sixty minutes repeat the first service.
To wrap up the morning, our pastor gives a closing blessing. When he says âamen,â a window pops up on the screen for viewers to click a link to receive an alert whenever the church goes live. This is a most helpful option.
The instrumental portion of the worship team plays as people exit the facility. Then the livestream ends, having lasted two hours and forty-four minutes.
They shot the entire video from one fixed camera in the back of the facility. Set to cover the entire stage, it works for both the worship team and the minister. But there was no zooming or panning, no variations in shots the entire time.
A little more disconcerting, however, was that the audio was at a low level, especially for the first service, and not the best quality. For part of the service, I was at full volume and still couldnât hear well.
A third production topic is lighting. Our church services have always occurred under subdued lighting. This provides a worshipful experienceâthough at times challenging for notetakers. A dimly lit room, however, doesnât display well on video, which requires spotlights for the best quality shots.
If the goal of a viewer is to connect with their churchâs live meeting and experience a service as they used to, then todayâs simple livestream smartly accomplishes this. If, however, they expected to see a professionally created video production, the experience would have disappointed them.
These two opposing perspectives highlight a chasm between church attenders who appreciate God-focused simplicity and those who bring a consumer mindset to their Sunday practices.
Indeed, the mantra at many churches once wasâand may still beâexcellence in all things. Though thereâs a reason to give our best to God, especially in our Sunday morning services, thereâs a risk in taking this to an unhealthy extreme.
I recall a friendâs experience being on a worship team at a large church with a highly produced service. Each week the worship leader would instruct the vocalists at what point in each song they were to raise their arms in praise of God. When she countered that she preferred to do so as led by the Holy Spirit, her leader rebuffed her and said that was unacceptable.
For our online church services, we must balance the simplicity of a single, fixed camera with the much more professional results accomplished by churches who have been posting services online for years.
There is a world that doesnât know Jesus. If they encounter our online church service, will they dismiss us as a laughable, second-rate experience thatâs out of touch with todayâs expectations? Or will our professional production draw them in and point them to Jesus?
While we shouldnât view a church service as entertainment or with the eye of a critic, we are equally wrong to accept any effortâregardless of qualityâjust because itâs offered with sincerity. This is a dilemma each church must grapple with and fully address so they can best advance the kingdom of God.
As for the service I just watched, I applaud their inaugural effort. I know they will continue to tweak it each Sunday, just as theyâve done with their custom online productions since the pandemic started.
In contrasting our churchâs custom-produced content from the first part of the pandemic with the livestream offering now, I realize I have different expectations for the two.
I compare custom content to the informal, personal videos I see on social media, especially Facebook and YouTube. This includes YouTubers. Our churchâs efforts surpass comparable content online that come from non-church sources. Itâs a comfortable, engaging experience.
For a livestream, I liken it to a television production, as it seems the most similar. At the very least, the standard of comparison is the highly produced and professional output of megachurches and leading parachurch ministries. In this respect, our livestream falls short. Though it may satisfy a regular attendee, a visitor will quickly bounce to something with a higher production value, be it another church service or something more mainstream.
* * *
ONE OF MY FIRST JOBS was as an audio engineer at a television station. I later applied the lessons learned there when I served on my churchâs tech team, running the soundboard or operating a camera. I did this under the supervision of a man whose day job was head engineer at another television station.
Here are my thoughts about the audio/visual technology used for online church services:
Audio: Most churches today have an audio system in their facility. Sometimes this is to fill sound in the back portion of the room, as people sitting in the front hear fine without it. In other instances, the sound system mixes the audio for the entire space. Without it, no one would hear much of anything. In both cases, the person at the audio console adjusts levels for what works best for the room.
This may or may not be whatâs best for online.
In the first scenario, where the sound system is for fill, the output of the audio board may not work well for a remote feed. An alternative is using a microphoneâeither built-in or externalâto feed directly into the camera. How well this works will depend on the quality of the microphone and its signal level. Experiment with various configurations to determine the best solution.
In the second scenario, the sound system covers the entire sanctuary. Pulling an auxiliary feed from the soundboard may produce the best results. Again, experimentation is essential.
In either case, tapping a professional audiovisual contractor may be the wise approach to produce the best outcome.
Video: The simplest solution for video is a fixed, unmanned camera. Set it up, turn it on, and youâre good to go. This static shot, however, will not engage viewers.
The next step is to have a camera operator who can pan and zoom as appropriate. The key word is appropriate. Some beginners, enamored with the cameraâs options, try to use its features continuously. This is too much and too often. Zoom in and pull back only when it makes sense to do so. Pan when thereâs a good reason for it. Donât be like the one novice camera operator I worked with who zoomed in and followed the offering plate as it weaved its way through the congregation.
Having a second camera gives a variation in shots, butâunless itâs a fixed cameraâthis requires a second operator. With two cameras, however, comes the need for a third person to run a video switcher. With many camerasâsome churches have a half dozen or moreâanother person acts as the producer, instructing the camera operators and video switcher what to do. As you can see, the amount of volunteer staff needed for a more engaging video experience can balloon quickly. Though you may initially have a nice list of eager volunteers, over time their enthusiasm will waver, and theyâll move on to other activities that interest them more.
Given this, with remotely operated cameras, one skilled person might possess the ability to set up each shot and switch between different cameras to produce a professional and seamless video feed. This takes skill to learn and practice to master. Itâs unlikely, however, that someone doing this a few Sundays a month for an hour or two will reach this level of proficiency. Regardless, itâs an option to consider, or at least move toward.
Takeaway: When streaming a service online, give proper attention to the audio and video quality of the production. Balance the competing extremes of âgood enoughâ and trying to rival a broadcast-quality production by considering your audience, goals, budget, and volunteer pool.
![]()
Back to One In-Person Service
Friday, November 20, 2020
On Friday, we receive an email message from our church. Starting this Sunday, the in-person service options will go from two times down to one at 9:30 a.m. Theyâll continue offering some childrenâs programming during this time.
The message gives no reason for this consolidation, but I assume itâs because there arenât enough people attending in-person to justify two services, and that one time will accommodate all who show up. I wonder, however, if the impetus for this doesnât come from the email I received yesterday, saying that a person attending one service last Sunday subsequently tested positive for Covid-19.
Because of HIPAA privacy regulations, they canât provide...