IMAG, or Image Magnification (the practice of putting close-up images of people on stage onto video screens) has become a fairly common occurrence in today's churches. Sometimes this is a very good thing. But sometimesnot so much.
Let's start with the purpose of IMAG. IMAG is intended to enable those who can't clearly see the people on the platform to actually see what's going on. The common definition of "clearly seeing" is being able to make out facial expressions. There are two basic situations where people can't see well.
The 33 Percent Rule
The first and most obvious is in a very large room. When you get far enough back from the platform/stage, you just can't make out the facial expressions of those on stage. Facial expressions play an instrumental role in communicating, as that's where your emotions best come through.
However, it should not be felt that you must accommodate everyone in this area. The general rule of thumb is that if 1/3 of your attendees can not make out facial expressions, then you should consider implementing IMAG. If in your room the last three of 25 rows can't really make out facial expressions, then instead of implementing IMAG for those seats, perhaps you should reserve those seats for people who arrive late and make it an incentive to not to show up 10 minutes after the service has started (I'm a big fan of not being an enabler).
Sight Line Obstructions
However, there's an exception to the 33 percent rule, and that brings us to the second point: sight line obstructions. As new construction costs have grown significantly, more and more congregations are buying existing buildings (often warehouse or former retail space) and converting them into their house of worship. These facilities frequently have pillars throughout the space providing structural support of the roof which would be cost-prohibitive to remove and unfortunately, can block the view of the platform for many seats. In this case, implementing some form of IMAG may make sense, but may require a somewhat different approach than the first situation. In a large room, IMAG is typically implemented through the use of large video screens at the front of the room. However, in the latter case, sight lines to screens at the front of the room will likely also be obstructed by the pillars in the room. Using smaller flat-panel plasma or LCD displays placed further back in the room (often at the top of the very pillars obstructing the view of the platform) may make more sense.
Considerations for IMAG
If IMAG is done poorly it’s a bad reflection on you. Are the cameras and switcher implement IMAG well? If not, it can be a distraction. Second, doing IMAG well—is expensive. You need cameras that can capture a good image in a variety of lighting conditions and be controlled easily and well in full manual mode, supported by a very sturdy tripod, and run through a switcher that won't noticeably delay the image. And your video display system has to be able to render a very good live video image in your normal ambient lighting conditions. You need an intercom system for the director to communicate with the camera operators. Yes, this is less expensive than it used to be. But it's still not cheap. If IMAG is the only reason for making this investment, and you really don't need IMAG to communicate effectively to your attendees, is spending that money good stewardship?
Lastly, IMAG is volunteer-intensive. You need people to run the cameras, and a person to call shots and run the switcher. It can be difficult to find enough volunteers with the skill to work in technical production ministry.
There are always exceptions to the "rule", but my goal is to get you to take a step back and consider the "whys" of doing IMAG before you move forward with implementing it. Doing it just because the larger churches around you are doing it, or because your tech team really wants to because it would be "cool", may not be wise reasons.