After putting this video together, I can recognize the differences in video quality depending on lighting and location. As the interviewer, I also feel like I was able to watch each of these interviews from two perspectives and have gained an understanding of what a difference position, lighting and location can make.
Outdoor shade clearly creates the least amount of shadow that can potenially distract viewers from the person speaking on camera. Shade is also preferable to a very sun-lit area when snow is on the ground because is decreases the glare of the sun's reflection off the snow. The most distacting amount of shade was that wich partially covers the person speaking or immediate background. A face half in the shade casts different shadows on the subject every time he/she moves.
I also noticed the natural light let inside by windows looked better than the lighting in both an office and medium-sized indoor space.
In the case of this video, I preferred a view close up to the person on camera. The close up view increased focus on the suject, while all the movement cought in the background of a long view created distraction.
The rule of thirds was sometimes distracting with movement in background because the movemnt and distribution of passers by could change the focal locations created by the rule of thirds. Lastly, the rule of thirds doesn't seem as necessary when interview is taken close up and inside against a pretty plain background, as it was applied in the office setting.