Abstract. Today&apos;s mobile phones are also video cameras. People are using these ubiquitous cameras to document everyday surroundings as well as create more artistic videos. This paper examines emergent mobile film making patterns by tracking video composition and recording activities in ecologically valid contexts of use. We report the findings of a user study on user created mobile videos, where the actions of 11 active mobile video users were documented for 2 weeks. The collected material included diaries, device logs, and altogether 255 videos. Our findings characterize the features of a typical mobile video. Additionally, our study uncovers common practices, user motivations and pitfalls during filming and editing in the mobile contex

Arto Puikkonen

Jani Mäntyjärvi

Jonna Häkkilä

Rafael Ballagas

CiteSeerX

Feature Use in Mobile Video Creation 
Arto Puikkonen1, Jonna Häkkilä2, Rafael Ballagas3 and Jani Mäntyjärvi4 
1 Nokia Research Center, Visiokatu 1, 
33720 Tampere, Finland 
2 Nokia Research Center, Yrttipellontie 1, 
90401 Oulu, Finland 
3  Nokia Research Center, 955 Page Mill Road, 
94304-1013 Palo Alto, USA 
4 VTT, Kaitoväylä 1, 
90570 Oulu, Finland 
{arto.puikkonen, tico.ballagas, jonna.hakkila}@nokia.com, jani.mantyjarvi@vtt.fi 
Abstract. Today’s mobile phones are also video cameras. People are using 
these ubiquitous cameras to document everyday surroundings as well as create 
more artistic videos. This paper examines emergent mobile film making 
patterns by tracking video composition and recording activities in ecologically 
valid contexts of use. We report the findings of a user study on user created 
mobile videos, where the actions of 11 active mobile video users were 
documented for 2 weeks. The collected material included diaries, device logs, 
and altogether 255 videos.  Our findings characterize the features of a typical 
mobile video.  Additionally, our study uncovers common practices, user 
motivations and pitfalls during filming and editing in the mobile context 
Keywords: Mobile video, mobile multimedia, user created content, user studies 
1 Introduction 
Video has become an integral part of the way we capture, and share experiences.  The 
emergence of popular online video sharing websites has significantly lowered the 
threshold for distributing video content, and people are now able to capture video in 
more circumstances than ever before and share it instantaneously. Earlier research 
reveals that the lightweight video work, meaning the use of mobile phone for shooting 
the videos, included more spontaneous and ‘just for fun’ filming in comparison to the 
use of conventional video cameras [3]. Other studies related to mobile videos include 
collaborative live video creation [1] and the practices on consuming videos [4] or 
mobile TV content [2], where for instance gift giving practices (e.g. recording content 
for a friend) were exposed [2]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study 
focusing on charting the technical and editing features used in everyday practices with 
user created mobile phones videos. Due the limited length, this paper has 
concentrated on the structure and feature use findings. In their further work, the 
authors will seek to look deeper into the context and content side of mobile phone 
video creation. 
2 Study Setting & Resulting Videos 
For a study in summer 2008, a total of 12 participants (10 male, 2 female) were 
recruited with a variety of occupations and all from Finland for a study. The average 
age was 30 years, from 16 to 45. One of the participants, #10, dropped out during the 
study. Each participant received a Nokia N95 mobile phone for 2 weeks, which 
includes a camera for video. The phones were equipped with key logging software, 
which gathered all key presses with a time stamp within the camera, gallery and editor 
application. For the 2 weeks, the participants were asked to use the given mobile 
phone just as they use their own. The participants were also provided with a small 
paper diary about filming and transferring, which the participants were asked to fill in 
whenever such an event occurred. In the end, each participant was interviewed. All 
the videos were analyzed for content, context, structure and feature use. This analysis 
was supported by analyzing the logger, interview and diary data. 
The participants filmed a total of 266 videos with the provided mobile phones, 
resulting in the average of 24.2 videos, minimum being 4 and maximum 90 clips. 
Three (#1, 4, 11) removed 11 videos during the study. In addition, 10 videos were 
accidental extremely short ones, making the total amount of analyzed videos 245. 
(See Fig. 1)  
 
Fig. 1. Example screenshots from user created videos. 
3 Feature Use Related to Filming Mobile Videos 
A vast amount of videos, (222/245), were single clip. Only two participants created 
videos with multiple clips (#9, 11). Out of the 42 videos by user #9, 17 had multiple 
clips and for user #11, 6/28 had multiple clips. The average amount of clips for each 
multiclip video was 2.6 varying from 2 to 4 clips, 3 being the most frequent. With clip 
length in multiclip videos, the average length was 29.5 seconds. 
Interestingly, all multiclip videos were created by using the phones provided pause 
function, which enables you to halt and resume filming when desired. When asked in 
the end interview also users #5 and #7 stated that they sometimes use this function. 
The motivation is getting a rough editing with little effort, as further editing was 
unlikely. “I just want to cut out stuff so it makes it easier to edit it later or that it is 
already edited as I probably won’t have the energy to edit it later on.” (#7). It was 
stated that this kind of editing had its downsides, but is most often used due to its 
level of ease. “It leaves extra bits in it.” (#7) 
The other 7 participants stated that they do not use this feature. Reasons for not 
creating multiclip videos divide into two categories. Five of the users expressed that 
they want the videos to be single entities as the videos are consumed as single entities. 
“Do not need it as they are for single items.” (#6) For the rest, the reason is the 
unexpected nature of the filmed target, which then would require more user attention. 
Besides the pause feature, zoom typically is the easiest feature to access in mobile 
phones. Not surprisingly, 8 of the participants used zoom during the study and also 1 
other stated using zoom occasionally. In total, zoom was used with 71 videos out of 
the 234 videos they created altogether. But commonly among all participants the 
opinion about the zoom was negative, and considered mainly as ‘a necessary evil’. 
Zooming was more preferred during filming instead of before filming.  Out of 71 
videos with zoom, 70% (50) videos had zooming during filming. 65% (46) had 
forward zooming and 55% (39) videos backward zooming. 49% (35/71) of the videos 
included zooming prior to filming. During interviews and by analyzing the videos, it 
became clear that people were less rushed in these circumstances and thus had more 
time to spend on video composition. 
A significant factor discouraging the use of zoom is the perceived decrease in 
video quality. Many of the videos are eventually consumed on larger screens where 
the downside of reduced quality is very apparent. Even for those that consume video 
on mobile phones, the use of zoom is seen as very unpleasant as the decrease in 
quality is apparent when filming. These issues make the use of zoom even more 
unpleasant for many and limits the use to situations where it is very necessary.  
When probed about the situations where zoom was necessary, the response was 
distance to the target. In these situations, it is either impossible to get closer, getting 
closer would have an undesired impact on the target, or getting closer would be 
socially awkward. In addition, two users reported that using the zoom is an easy way 
to get some life into the video, if the target itself is not lively enough. 
In general, when examining the actions done during filming, the remarkable 
observation was the lack of them. During the study, none of the users changed any 
video settings of the device that are available through the menus in the UI.  Even for 
video resolution, the common consensus was that it is initially changed to the desired 
quality and left that way for good. When asked about the use of the other settings, no 
user changed from the default. Reasons for using default settings divide into two 
categories. For some, the default settings for white balance and color tone are seen as 
the best alternative in almost every situation. For others, the reason is simply not 
knowing what setting would be the best or even what the effect of these settings is. 
Thus the defaults are the “easy way out” for a good quality end-result. 
As every day situations often have a sporadic nature, changing the settings before 
filming is out of the question if it delays capture. The only situations, where settings 
are changed, are nighttime situations when being fast is not required. This event did 
not occur during the study, but was found during interviews (#4, 6). For both the night 
mode feature provided needed improvement, when the received quality is generally 
poor. However, for both, avoiding filming in poor lighting was still the preferred 
option. 
Many of today’s mobile phones offer editing capabilities, such as the possibility to 
merge videos, give the file a name, and replace audio. Similarly as none of the 
multiclip videos during the study were done by using the merging feature, the use of 
other features after the filming was also minimal. The logger data showed that no-one 
had used the editor, none of the videos had been given names and none had changed 
the audio using the provided features. When this behavior was presented to 
participants, it was clear that this also represented their practices in every day life. 
Out of the 11, only 3 (#5, 11, 12) stated that they had ever tried to use a video 
editor on a mobile phone. Out of the 3 that have tried the editor, none have used it 
more than a few times. For all three, the experience was seen as slow, cramped 
controls and requiring too much effort. “You can’t do stuff like that with a small 
screen when even the PC screen sometimes feels too small for editing.” (#11) All 
three that have tried the editor provided by a mobile phone actively utilize an editor 
provided by a PC. 
For the 7 participants that have not even tried to use the editor, the reasoning can 
be divided into two categories. The 4 (# 2, 3, 7, 8) that have tried and used editors on 
a PC stated that the mere idea of editing on a mobile phone is seen as too 
complicated. This level of complication is compared to their experiences with PC 
editing that is also seen as challenging. The 3 (#1, 4, 6) that haven’t tried editing on 
any device stated that there is no need to edit on a mobile as there is no need to edit 
on a PC either. “I really don’t see it as important as I don’t need editing.” (#1) The 
reasons for not seeing the editing as important for the three were “My videos are not 
movie-like, only documents of events.” (#1), “I don’t have time for that.” (#4) and 
“They are just individual clips.” (#6) 
When asked about the possibility to give names to video files, none of the users 
were interested in the feature. In fact, none of the users give names to the files at any 
point of the video life, until it is a complete edited entity. When it is an edited 
complete version, users 5 and 12, who actively edit videos, sometimes give the end 
versions names.  Naming files is typically done where editing is done, which is on a 
PC. During the study user 12 created one edited complete version and gave that a 
name. The name of the file was the name of the lake where the video was filmed. 
As a conclusion, mobile phone videos form an important part in capturing a variety 
of everyday events. As the current solutions may be fairly suitable for some users, the 
more active users clearly experience technical limitations when using a mobile phone 
to capture the things that surround them. 
References 
1. A. Engström, M. Esbjörnsson, O. Juhlin, “Mobile Collaborative Live Video Mixing,” In 
Proceedings of MobileHCI’08, pp. 157-166. ACM Press 2008. 
2. R. Harper, T. Regan, S. Izadi, K.A. Mosawi, M. Rouncefield, S. Rubens, “Trafficking: 
design for the viral exchange of TV content on mobile phones,” In Proc.of MobileHCI '0), 
pp. 249-256, vol. 309. ACM, New York, NY. 
3. D. Kirk, A. Sellen, R. Harper, K. Wood, “Understanding Videowork,” In Proc. CHI 2007, 
pp. 61-70. 
4. O’Hara, K., Mitchell, A. S., Vorbau A. Consuming Video on Mobile Devices. In Proc. CHI 
2007, 857-866 


Feature Use in Mobile Video Creation

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=95BFF74802856DE959CD4C44557B4912?doi=10.1.1.1067.9550&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Feature Use in Mobile Video Creation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX