Technic Reviews - Videos or Pictures

[Osuharding1]

All -

So the Eurobricks front page has a poll of whether Lego fans prefer picture reviews with text or a video review. The overwhelming majority of voters chose picture reviews and many stated valid reasons for their vote. The reason for my post here in the Technic forum is to get a sense of how mostly Technic builders feel about this? I confess that I am a Technic reviewer on YouTube and I found the results of the poll to be quite distrubing. Many folks said the only reviewers they watch are Brick Show, BrickQueen and JangBricks... all of which rarely do any Technic reviews (BTW... I now do the official Lego Technic set reviews for Brickshow since they botched the 8070 review a while back). My question or reason for this post would be to start a discussion on the pros / cons of both types of reviews and what the general Technic fan population prefers when it comes to reading or watching reviews of either official Lego sets or even MOCs. Thanks!

[Jeroen Ottens]

I like to read, I read way faster than the typical video reviewer can talk. Furthermore I can skip the 'boring' parts when I want. So I rarely, if ever look to a videoreview.

[Rijkvv]

Furthermore I can skip the 'boring' parts when I want.

^This. Some reviews are very detailed, and I rarely bother to see all sides of the box it is packed in. Todays boxes are not interesting anyway* and I'm not interested in seeing which parts are in what bag. So I can skip and scroll to the parts of the review I care about.

But I have to say, sometimes I doo look reviews. It depends on the quality of the review and the voice of the reviewer (some are very annoying )

*I might be spoiled. I grew up in the 90s and back then (and the 80s as well) the boxes were pieces of art. The image looked more, well, balanced, the alternate model on the backside (with TECHNIC and Model Team sets instructions were included), and the bigger sets had that awesome display under the front. Well, most of you guys will know what I'm speaking about.

[Blakbird]

Fascinating question. The answer is the same as for many questions: "it depends". An excellent photo review is probably equivalent to an excellent video review. A poor video review is not as good as an excellent photo review, and a poor photo review is not as good as an excellent video review. So how do we decide?

In my opinion, Technic reviews are fundamentally different than other LEGO reviews in one important way. For a Technic review to be truly excellent, it needs to answer the question: "how does it work?". It can be said that a video is worth a thousand words, but sometimes those words are important. I'll give an example. Eurobricks Reviewer Academy member Masked Builder did a review of the 41999 crawler. It's filled with dozens of big, beautifully lit photographs showing the build, the box, and the model. This is exactly what you'd expect from the Academy! However, it says very little about how the functions work, how the gears are braced, how the design is engineered, etc. By contrast, I reviewed the 9398 crawler (nearly the same model). My photos are complete rubbish compared with Masked Builder's, but the review has a lot of words explaining how the whole thing works and how it goes together. I'm not sure I would say either of these is better than the other; the ideal Technic review would contain the best of both.

This problem extends to video reviews. While a video is good at demonstrating all the functions, it is very difficult to include a lot of text in a video review, and I think a Technic review needs a lot of text (though maybe some people don't read it). Really good video reviews (like Sariel's) do a good job of trying to include enough text to give a general idea of how everything works.

So the perfect Technic review would have:

• Lots of big beautiful photos of the box, instructions, parts, build and model.
  
• Lots of text and diagrams showing how everything works.
  
• AND
  
• A brief video demonstrating the functions.
  

In my opinion.

[BusterHaus]

I prefer picture reviews, although I don't have any objections to videos. It harks back to being a kid and looking at pictures of sets I didn't own at the end of instruction booklets. I would examine them for hours, trying to reverse engineer them from a couple of tiny pictures. I would then try to build it and figure out how it was made.

The same goes for pictures today: I get a lot more satisfaction out of staring at a single good picture than at a 5 minute review.

[dr_spock]

Should have both. Detailed pics along with videos demonstrating functions. Having text is good too since it can be translated by Google Translate or whatever if your language is not English.

[bekindsorewind]

Picture reviews. No video reviews.

[allanp]

Well, a video is just a bunch of moving pictures and text can easily be spoken while you point to the relevant thing you are speaking about so it really just depends. Technic is about working models and the most interesting part is how they work. A video usually does a great job of showing what the finished model looks like but it does not usually show what the inside mechanics look like. Pictures show this way more often because they typically show progress of the build. However I think a video review still has the potential to be better because if you can somehow get the camera in to see those moving parts, you can show not just what the mechanism looks like, but what it looks like moving. It can often be confusing when looking at a still image because you can't always tell which parts are moving mechanism and which parts are static, non-mechanism and so a video might prove to be even more effective. Having said all that I think there is a lot to be said for leaving some mystery to the model. Knowing exactly how everything works, how every gear connects to every other gear and so on does spoil the fun of finding all that out when you build the model yourself and therefore can slightly diminish the models appeal. Maybe you could start with the wide shot of the finished model and then before going into the main body of the review, go to points part way through the build so we can look at the mechanisms as they are being built. Not a whole "lets build" but maybe 4 or 5 short clips, each showing an interesting new mechanism. "So here we have the gear box in place and that's how that works, it's braced by these three beams and held into the model here, here and strengthened here" kinda thing. Then go to the close up and the final review. Like another thing you get with picture reviews, It would be nice to get a close up of any new or cool parts released in the set before you build it.

[Blakbird]

Knowing exactly how everything works, how every gear connects to every other gear and so on does spoil the fun of finding all that out when you build the model yourself and therefore can slightly diminish the models appeal.

Better not read Technicopedia then.

[Good old Lego builder]

I prefer a pictorial review. Especially since English is not my first language, I like to take the time to read and understand it better.

[Zerobricks]

As I said in the main topic I actually prefer video reviews for technic because you can simply see how everything functions. That is if the review is made in a proper manner without screamin in an onfocused camera and swooshing an offroader...

[Osuharding1]

As I said in the main topic I actually prefer video reviews for technic because you can simply see how everything functions. That is if the review is made in a proper manner without screamin in an onfocused camera and swooshing an offroader...

I certainly hope my reviews fall into the done properly category. I am currently working on building 42024 and I am going to put together a review for YouTube that takes into account several of the points discussed in this discussion and the main topic. Maybe this new approach I am taking will appeal to more people in that I will get my hands and stupid voice out of the videos and just have a very short clip at the end to demonstrate the features... Wish me luck.

[rollermonkey]

Picture review with a SHORT video demonstrating interesting functions.

This does not mean showing the same thing going back and forth 60 times, either.

[Moz]

I'm with Rollermonkey: the best "video reviews" to my mind are a standard text+photo review then a video showing the model in action, possibly with some close-ups of specifi parts and a half-assembled shot showing the internal mechanisms in operation. Really, if the model isn't moving why are you using video?

Count me in the people who don't watch video reviews very often. I read ~10,000 words an hour, but I can only understand about 50 a minute (3000/hour), fewer if the videographer hasn't paid much attention to sound quality and enunciation. So the question is: can you re-write your script to have 1/3 the words without losing any of the content? No? Best give me a copy of the written version then.

Then there's video quality. It's hard to light still shots well, then you have to get the framing and focus right. With video? Lower resolution, more compression artifacts, and you have to think about panning, zooming and linking shots. That's quite hard to do well. Then you need to script those shots so that you linger appropriately at the points where each viewer is interested, but move smoothly past the less interesting parts. What's that? Viewers don't all think the same parts are interesting? That makes your shot list and editing even harder, then.

I'll usually watch Sariel's videos because he does them well and builds interesting stuff. But for me a video review needs to be short and have a page of text with it to be worth while, and even then clearly linked to the text before I'll watch it. Too many video reviews are some slow-talking moron talking about how the box works. Yes, yes, I get it, you have to open the box, get a move on. 10 minutes later they've progressed to explaining the history of Lego instructions and the black/grey/bley problem. Yeah, whatever, is there perchance a model involved at any point?

Edited August 16, 2014 by Moz

[BachAddict]

Technicbricks and Setechnic make good photo reviews along with function videos.

[jantjeuh]

I like to read, I read way faster than the typical video reviewer can talk. Furthermore I can skip the 'boring' parts when I want. So I rarely, if ever look to a videoreview.

Exactly what I think. Picture reviews are much more convenient for me. Videos are nice to show off functionality, that's it.

Edited August 16, 2014 by jantjeuh

[TheItalianBrick]

It's hard to say, only I can say right now is that when I watch a video I really hate the texts coming when the video is going on! I mean you can't read and watch at the same time! so best would be to have a video yes, but it stops when a text pops up, and then goes on again!

[vmln8r]

I'm just gonna drop this excellent Technic set review here:

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53789

[paul_delahaye]

I still like a short video to understand the functions, but I like to see high quality pictures to see all the juicy details

Paul

[allanp]

Better not read Technicopedia then.

I love technicopedia. You raise a very good point and maybe I'm wrong about revealing too many secrets. In fact, there are a few models that didn't interest me until I read your review then I had to have it so yeah, I take it back. BTW, when is 1996 coming out?!

I'm just gonna drop this excellent Technic set review here:

http://www.eurobrick...showtopic=53789

That is a great review. I'm fairly confident that you can make a video review have all the same information and content. Hmmmm, maybe I should try make a video review of 8868 and find out for myself.

[Paul B Technic]

I think a good photo review with a short video WHEN NEEDED is the best ;)

[allanp]

BTW, are we talking about reviews for the brick show? Because doesn't that kinda force you to do video?

[legomuppet9]

I often would prefer photo reviews, with an exception of video reviews like Sariel's (although I do often skip a bit of the timelapse on the bigger builds... ) a lot of video reviews are of a guy talking and trying to do everything one handed and they drag on and on and on...

[Balrog]

I actually like both. At least for sets that have appeal to me.

I like in a written review (if it is good) how it describes everything. If there are good pictures in the review, then it's even better. You can take your time looking at them and have your own thoughts about it. And there is virtually no restriction in text for the writer to describe contents, functions, parts and everything else he wants to say.

On the other hand, video reviews show the functions in action. I personally like Sariel's reviews best. They aren't even narrated and transport additional information that isn't available in the video itself through text. Also, his videos have a nice style that I really like. And hamsters! I don't really "like" narrated review videos. Mostly, because I often can't watch them with sound.

[RohanBeckett]

I prefer a bunch of hi-res, well photographed, well lit stills.

Especially when it comes to introducing new parts! gimme those lovely macro shots!

I can't STAND watching hand-held-shakycam videos, in a dimly-lit bedroom, where the person attempts to hold the camera AND operate the model/remote control, at the same time!!

Quickest way to make me close the video, is to do this.

And like others have said.. Sariels are among the best.. good lighting.. nifty angles.. and plenty of text/slides within the video describing various functions

Not a fan of the thrash metal music he uses occasionally.. but hey.. they can't all be perfect! and I can always use my mute button!

I do feel like I know my way around a small Polish apartment VERY well, though!!

RB