So basically this guy is saying he'd rather remember his life as a distorted story that airbrushes away reality in order to embellish an element of perfection that never actually existed than as the actual real-life moment he experienced. Sounds strikingly similar to: -Brave new World -The Matrix -The Truman Show and all those other "is a fake bliss bliss nonetheless" type stories. This guy took the blue pill.
We constantly filter out a lot of noise - auditory and visual. Our memories of events lack that noise. Naive recordings - such as what complete amateurs using smart phones will produce - will have all of that noise. So the recording of the event will not match our memory, partially because it will record things that were not important.
In order for the recording to match our memory, it would need to filter out all of the auditory and visual noise. But that's just the start. There's also the fact that amateur videos tend to not do a good job of showing what a viewer may want to pay attention to. As a participant, you can, without thinking, look around to see exactly what you want to see. This ease of knowing your surroundings will be a part of your memory, and the video will likely not capture it.
A professionally made video could alleviate most of these problems. That's why editing movies is hard, and considered an art. Showing viewers the right shots for the right length of time to give them certain understandings of a scene is crucial to making the viewer feel like they are there.
My point: you're assuming that the video recording is somehow an "objective" view of reality, and your memory is "subjective." Your memory certainly is subjective, but I say the video is, too. Raw videos are not how we experience life, nor are they "reality", so I think it's uncharitable to conclude the author only wants fantasy recordings.