Our team is running into challenges when routing video projects. At the moment, we are NOT using PHQ to route videos, but I wanted to get a sense of how everyone else is using it and if there is a difference in how different roles review. Currently we are routing video screenshots, but have a few issues: Editorial team will only review screenshots for copy errors Scientific team will need to review the entire video as they need to approve the animation/transitions, video flow, in addition to the copy. Has PHQ worked for your team? Do you have both teams review the full play by play video rather than editorial only copy? Would appreciate any insight and tips. Thank you!

Level 3

Question

How is your team reviewing and routing videos with PHQ?

Forum|Forum|5 years ago
October 26, 2020
4 replies
1013 views

Our team is running into challenges when routing video projects. At the moment, we are NOT using PHQ to route videos, but I wanted to get a sense of how everyone else is using it and if there is a difference in how different roles review.

Currently we are routing video screenshots, but have a few issues:

Editorial team will only review screenshots for copy errors
Scientific team will need to review the entire video as they need to approve the animation/transitions, video flow, in addition to the copy.

Has PHQ worked for your team?

Do you have both teams review the full play by play video rather than editorial only copy?

Would appreciate any insight and tips.

Thank you!

This post is no longer active and is closed to new replies. Need help? Start a new post to ask your question.

imgrund

Adobe Employee

Hi - we use PHQ the same way whether it is for a print ad, video, or website. (The only thing we change is banner ads since there is no slow down or pause for those. So some teams do screenshots and some do videos).

The Editorial team still really only focuses on copy, but they love videos because they can pause or maybe even playback at a slower speed when copy is on the screen and then at double time when there is no words. LOL!

Hope that helps

N

NarothneeJeAuthor

Level 3

Thank you Anthony for the feedback.

Best,

D

DebbieSc

Level 3

We also use the Workfront proofing tool the same for video as we do for other projects. However, we don't route the proof to different people in stages. We instead encourage a "watch party" of the video for review, because there are often discussions about what needs to be tweaked, and these discussions then lead to decisions. So our project manager is tasked with adding in revisions that arise from those discussions. Also, since video can be taxing to edit, we want to minimize the number of times our videographer has to alter the video.

N

NarothneeJeAuthor

Level 3

I really love this idea by the way! Definitely something I will introduce to the team.

Best,

E

EmilyTh1

Level 3

The way we handle Video routing is we route the script separately in PHQ and then route the Video asset later. After the initial script is approved, any changes to the script (transcript) after the video routing are the responsibility of the Video Producer/Editor to update in the script document.

All documents and videos are kept in Folders on the Project level so that everyone on the project has access to them at all times.

In cases where we shoot first without a script, the Video Producer/Editor is responsible for creating a transcript.

We also are using the "simple" proof method and do not utilize stages or advanced proof workflows at this time. Rather, we include the roles of the proof proposed routing recipients in the Workfront task description as a suggested guide for the proof owner to follow as reference.

This process seems to be working well for our internal video team who have expressed they enjoy using PHQ.