Video is a completely different medium, so there's no reason to expect the same rules or trade offs to apply. I feel like most of the answers here are obvious, but just off the top of my head:
1) Video editing can enhance the product in more obvious and overt ways than audio editing (which, when done well, is invisible) can. With audio, all you can do is play other audio. With video, you can show relevant clips, and even talk over them. The editing, then, has more upside.
2) Video is more obviously performative, in that it usually involves someone looking into the camera, so the "just listening in on a conversation" feeling is usually already out the window, which means there's less inherent tolerance for a lack of production/editing.
3) People are more self-conscious about pauses, stumbling, stammering, or digressions while on video.
4) The barriers to entry on videos are higher, because they involve more complicated and potentially expensive tools to edit properly, whereas anyone can fire up Audacity, so videos are already probably self-selecting, upfront, for slightly more engaged or competent creators in aggregate.
5) I'm pretty sure people do post lots of crappy unedited videos, anyway. But a lot of video watching on the Internet is algorithmic, so I'd imagine you're a lot less likely to stumble upon it just browsing YouTube, for example, because it's a lot less likely to recommend it to you.
1) Video editing can enhance the product in more obvious and overt ways than audio editing (which, when done well, is invisible) can. With audio, all you can do is play other audio. With video, you can show relevant clips, and even talk over them. The editing, then, has more upside.
2) Video is more obviously performative, in that it usually involves someone looking into the camera, so the "just listening in on a conversation" feeling is usually already out the window, which means there's less inherent tolerance for a lack of production/editing.
3) People are more self-conscious about pauses, stumbling, stammering, or digressions while on video.
4) The barriers to entry on videos are higher, because they involve more complicated and potentially expensive tools to edit properly, whereas anyone can fire up Audacity, so videos are already probably self-selecting, upfront, for slightly more engaged or competent creators in aggregate.
5) I'm pretty sure people do post lots of crappy unedited videos, anyway. But a lot of video watching on the Internet is algorithmic, so I'd imagine you're a lot less likely to stumble upon it just browsing YouTube, for example, because it's a lot less likely to recommend it to you.
1. Maybe it's just me, but I can tell the difference in unedited audio in just as obvious a way as video, in the sense that people pause and studder and make mistakes just as much, if it's not edited. I can't see one being more overt than the other. Are you saying people have a lower attention span when it comes to video, so they have to cut more, compared to audio?
2. Oh okay, I thought you could watch a conversation on video if you wanted to, and some vidoes are like that, where it's all an unedited one take conversation. But I still believe in cutting there too, which is why it's done often.
3. Why is this? Maybe it's me and but in my filmmaking, I am just as self conscious of pauses, stumbling, and digressions in the audio, just as much as in the video.
4. So people have lower standards in podcasts, because the technology to edit them with is not as complicated as video?
5. Well there are no podcasts on youtube near as much to compare to videos for sure.