[videoblogging] the true story about Amanda
As you know I would never promote one of my videos unless, of course, I could find the least possible excuse. Anyway, with all the discussion around Amanda, ABC, Rocketboom and everything, I thought I'd let you in on, what I think, is the most important part of the story. I'm pretty much the only one that knows about this, but I just couldn't hold back any more ... the truth comes out. http://richardshow.org/show/2007/01/08/oh-amanda-where-art-thou/ ... Richard -- Richard: http://richardshow.org The Show: http://richardshow.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Popping the MediaSnackers Vodcast cherry
Been 'watching-from-the-sidelines' for a while and decided to get involved! There are a few sound level issues but here's my first vodcast EVER: http://mediasnackers.com/focus/vodcasts/ - here's the blurb: The MediaSnackers monthly vodcast is a fifteen minute shot (more or less) of yummy-youth-media-goodness. Featuring content made, produced or focussed on young people and media from around the globe. Featuring: Slip Of The Tongue by Karen Lum from theoneminutesjr.org; an exclusive interview with Geoff Goodwin, Project Leader on Project Teens, BBC; what we mean by MediaSnackers; Constance music video by Sam Sanchez; trailer for Invisible Children; music by The Rivers. DK MediaSnackers Founder +44 07787 535 737 mediasnackers.com NEWS: MediaSnackers training is for young people and youth professionals focusing on new media/technology. For course details and references check out the training section of the website: http://mediasnackers.com/training/ (features short films of previous training plus downloadable .pdf with full details) - Any ideas contained in this email remain the intellectual property of © MediaSnackers 2007 - if you have received this email by error or you are not the intended recipient then please inform us and we will ensure the problem is rectified. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Let's band together to do something about Global Warming!!!
Doctor P, You might want to lighten up a little here, Casey was trying to do something good, and, believe me, I know Casey, and she's not dumb. For the record, you also might note in inconvenient truth they site statistics about how a large percentage of the warmest years on record have been in recent years (very very tiny sample - as you know - but they are using dramatic data to illustrate their point) and, as you know, this curve of climate change is now almost parallel to the y axis, since it is accelarating at such a dramatic rate (a curve they showed in many ways in many forms on inconvenient truth), it is very dramatic when considering a very small sample of years and, in fact, I just heard a story on NPR about how warm this winter is, over-all, compared to others and scientists interviewed certainly implied that this was related to global warning, recognizing that most of us recognize that what is important is a much larger trend. So, in my view a dramatic anecdote, referring to a very small sample of data, adds an emotional appeal that can then be backed up by data. Mainly, I'm saying if you want to get your point across you might try a less pedantic and condescending approach. By the way, I saw your pocast featured on blip, subscribed and I'm enjoying it a lot - i would recommend it. ... regards ... Richard On 1/7/07, doctor P [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Global Warming is real and it is a real threat. However, Casey, your note that no snow in Montreal confirms your belief that GW is behind this is a disservice for the environmental cause and is disappointing for scientists like myself that are trying to educate the public on such matters. Science is not a belief. Natural patterns are not a conspiracy theory. An anecdote is one data point not an evidence. Lack of snow or a heat wave must be placed in a graph where they produce a body of evidence that may show a trend. The melting of the polar ice shelves is cataclysmic and is happening. What can you do about GW, Casey? First, educate yourself. Go to a bookstore, for example. Read popular versions of the science describing GW. Rent 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Al Gore. I produced a video myself explaining Global Warming at http://spacegeek.org/ep3_QT.shtml Google anti-GW website to learn how to respond to the oil industry. As a Canadian, you are one of the highest producers of GW byproducts and waste. Have you written a letter to your rep. regarding the Alberta Oil Sands? Are some of your friends driving SUVs, could you convince them to question that choice? Your show is popular. Would it be possible for you to produce a show about GW in an entertaining but also educational way? Your idea of a vlog site with GW witness accounts and tags can only be real if it is intelligent otherwise it will be debunked and will provide fodder for those who like to portray environmentalists in a poor light. Once you have educated yourself, then your actions will not be based on belief but reason and that is the difference between a closed-minded person manipulated by religion/patriotism/trends and an enlightened member of the environmentalist community. Doctor P http://Spacegeek.org http://Spacegeek.org cell: (250)884-6364 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard: http://richardshow.org Show: http://richardshow.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Popping the MediaSnackers Vodcast cherry
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, DK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Been 'watching-from-the-sidelines' for a while and decided to get involved! There are a few sound level issues but here's my first vodcast EVER: http://mediasnackers.com/focus/vodcasts/ - here's the blurb: The MediaSnackers monthly vodcast is a fifteen minute shot (more or less) of yummy-youth-media-goodness. Featuring content made, produced or focussed on young people and media from around the globe. Featuring: Slip Of The Tongue by Karen Lum from theoneminutesjr.org; an exclusive interview with Geoff Goodwin, Project Leader on Project Teens, BBC; what we mean by MediaSnackers; Constance music video by Sam Sanchez; trailer for Invisible Children; music by The Rivers. DK MediaSnackers Founder +44 07787 535 737 mediasnackers.com NIce work. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
[videoblogging] how do i up my video size?
I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in my video... I want to keep my horizontal dimension no larger than 420 how do i go about doing this.. and what are good dimensions? I use either 3ivx or h264 for my quicktime compression... -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] home office pics
I don't know how many of you like to look at other people's home office setups, but I love it. My pics do show a little of our recording area (audio), but for camera work I just stick a tripod up so I didn't include that part. Anyway, if you are a voyeur like me, maybe you'll enjoy viewing my home office setup. http://gamingandtech.com/?p=38 Robyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] David's stop motion talking
Well, not really stop motion... but take a peek at http://davidleeking.com/etc/2007/01/stop-motion-talking.html I'm filming me saying one word at a time, and making sentences out of it. It's HARD!!! Anyway - thought some of you might get a kick out of this. -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] how do i up my video size?
If I may suggest. I am no expert on video encoding techniques, but I would consider myself an expert on playback and user experience. For exmaple I would recommend flash playback for in the browser if possible, and MP4 as your primary video format for compatibility with the most computers, software, and hardware like the iPod, and PSP. That said I have also recommended in the past and recommend now... that if you encode your videos at 320x240 that you present them on your blog by embedding them in the page at approximately 375x500 allowing for considerations due your page layout. Some people have a wider main column, and some people have a slightly narrower main column. Don't actually encode the videos at an alternative larger size. It's really just a waste of time, server space and bandwidth. The truth is the human eye cannot detect every pixel at 15 fps. Sure you wouldn't present a JPG or a GIF in your web page at a higher resolution than it actually is... but they are STATIC not moving at 15fps. Most people, even critical film editor types would not be able to recognize the difference between a video enocded at 320x240 and presented at 500 pixels... vs one actually encodded at 500 pixels and presented at 500 pixels. We did this at mefeedia.com about 3-4 months ago. We now display ALL videos at approximately 480 pixels wide (it was the best for our page layout) regardless of their original size and the presentation and viewing experience is a whole lot more enjoyable. In fact noone has ever even mentioned a word about it artifacts or oddities due scaling. But don't simply take my word for it. Youtube is displaying at these larger sizes and their video quality is obviously *CRAP*. Google also defaults to displaying the video at the size of your web browser window... which is ussually WELL over twice the original video's resolution. The google interface allows you to view each video at 1:1, 1:2 (double size) or fit to window. Go take a look. Ideally videos should not be presented in a web page over 1:2 (double size) because the eye can then start to detect the pixel doubling. But this is not the biggest factor... I recommend 500 pixels wide because the biggest thing is proportionality to the rest of the page layout. 500pixels by 375pixels leaves plenty of space on the page for a right hand column as most blogs have, and enough white space for not only the operating system and browser menus and controls... but enough room for supporting text and information in the page. BTW, let's not forget that Democracy and Fireant also by default scale videos up for presentation. What presenting the video larger than it's original resolution does is it allows the eye to relax, and the user to sit back in their chair and enjoy the video. Wether the video is 30 seconds or 5 minutes... alowing the user to relax and sit back is important. Speaking of which, this reminds me blip.tv even updated their cite about a month back to present all videos at 500 pixels... precisely what I recommended. i.e. http://blip.tv/file/122903/ The above example is a video encoded at 320x240 and presented at 500x375 as are virtually all the videos on blip.tv. Virtually all the major video sharing services encode their videos at 320x240 but present the videos at 400 pixels, 500 pixels wide or more. Consider this too... it's a great way to enhance your viewing experience and it's absolutely *free*. It takes no more extra time, server space or bandwidth. Just specify. embed stc=http://urltoyourvideo.mov; width=500 height=375 the next time you embed your video. Or in whatever web side playback tool you use. The primary consideration in fact should be your layout. I recommend 500pixels because MOST videoblogs use about a 500 pixel wide main column layout. Some may use a little less... about 480pixels wide... and some may have a little wider column about 520 pixels wide. Scale appropriately. I share because I'm a big fan of Wandering West Michigan as I am of all vlogs that cover the local beat ... what steve garfield likes to call citizen journalism... and bloggers of old like to call hyper-local journalism. I just like to call it localism... and it's the quintesential form of putting think global act local idealism to practice. Some of my other favorites in addition to Wandering West Michigan are. Mnstories.com, Chuck Olsen's pet project on Minneapolis Lofistl.com, Bill Streeter's project on local St. Louis. nTune.tv, covering the Chapel Hill, NC area NewEnglandStories.com, Steve Garfield's Boston based project I'm always looking for more, and I know they are out there so shoot me a line if you see any. I'm keeping a list here. http://mefeedia.com/lists/14/ Keep rocking Josh. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 1/8/07, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in
[videoblogging] Re: Super Happy Vlog House 2007
I would be interested but I do not know where I will be living come April heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Susan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow... anyone? Anyone at all? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Susan kitykity@ wrote: Happy 2007! I have been going crazy between moving, work, and everything else... but now that we are in the new house, I wanted to stir back up discussion about Super Happy Vlog House! http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com/ It will be April Fool's Day Weekend. Ryanne had the awesome idea that we should have them across the country, so that people could have the chance to host one, and perhaps some wouldn't have to travel as far. I think that's an awesome idea! If you have a house you'd like to offer up, please add it to the wiki. Also, I had come up with the concept of having different themes for each house--like mine will be a music video theme, where others might have a fiction story theme, or a diary/journalling theme, or an interviewing theme, etc. This weekend is not for vlogging awards. It's not for just sitting and listening to lectures. It's about working on our own videos for our video blogs, meeting up with friends, and bouncing ideas off each other for 24 hours straight (and then some). So if you'd like to be involved, and if you'd like to attend, please let me know. You can email me or post your thoughts and ideas to the wiki. Can't wait to see you at the house! Susan http://vlog.kitykity.com PS - I'm working on a music video right now as I type--of course, it's another Adam song, but not a collaboration this time--keep an eye on my vlog for it to show up in the next couple days!
Re: [videoblogging] how do i up my video size?
cor blimey, josh!!! compress to ipod settings then save as a quicktime .mov, its much easier and comes out at 640x480. Alternatively just alter the size in the custom settings in quicktime to what ever size you want. 425x335 is also a good size which is a bit in the middle. On 8 Jan 2007, at 18:23, Josh Leo wrote: I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in my video... I want to keep my horizontal dimension no larger than 420 how do i go about doing this.. and what are good dimensions? I use either 3ivx or h264 for my quicktime compression... -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: how do i up my video size?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I may suggest. I am no expert on video encoding techniques, but I would consider myself an expert on playback and user experience. For exmaple I would recommend flash playback for in the browser if possible, and MP4 as your primary video format for compatibility with the most computers, software, and hardware like the iPod, and PSP. That said I have also recommended in the past and recommend now... that if you encode your videos at 320x240 that you present them on your blog by embedding them in the page at approximately 375x500 allowing for considerations due your page layout. Some people have a wider main column, and some people have a slightly narrower main column. I agree with your assessment as far as H.264's concerned. I'm very impressed with the scalability of a 320x180 (widescreen) H.264 video all the way to MacBook Pro full-screen (1680x1050). I'm not saying it looks GOOD at that size, but for the size it starts out, it does a great job. Josh may want to just edit his blog entries and increase the playing size of his 320x240 videos as you mentioned below. The problem with doing this vs making videos with larger frame sizes is when you have text in your video, like a lower 3rd, or a credit roll. Blow those up and they look like garbage... ESPECIALLY if they're moving. If that's not an issue for whomever's posting the videos, then playing larger than you posted it is a good idea. Don't actually encode the videos at an alternative larger size. It's really just a waste of time, server space and bandwidth. This doesn't make any sense. :) Frame size has no effect on server space or bandwidth. Data Rate is what you're talking about. You can make videos with larger frame sizes and the exact same data rate, and it's all the same to the computer. Speaking of which, this reminds me blip.tv even updated their cite about a month back to present all videos at 500 pixels... precisely what I recommended. i.e. http://blip.tv/file/122903/ The above example is a video encoded at 320x240 and presented at 500x375 as are virtually all the videos on blip.tv. ? no it isn't. If you download the source file for that video (http://blip.tv/file/get/ Bestdamntech-MickipediaPutsTheGeekInChic783.wmv) it's 768x480. It's also horribly compressed in the original source file, so it may actually be 320x240 footage expanded to 768x480 then contracted to 500x375. Also, how do the videos on blip become 500x375? Is that an encoding option? Does that happen only if you encode videos @ 320x240? I haven't seen that on blip's upload page OR in their upperblip application. -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv Virtually all the major video sharing services encode their videos at 320x240 but present the videos at 400 pixels, 500 pixels wide or more. Consider this too... it's a great way to enhance your viewing experience and it's absolutely *free*. It takes no more extra time, server space or bandwidth. Just specify. embed stc=http://urltoyourvideo.mov; width=500 height=375 the next time you embed your video. Or in whatever web side playback tool you use. Keep rocking Josh. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 1/8/07, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in my video... I want to keep my horizontal dimension no larger than 420 how do i go about doing this.. and what are good dimensions? I use either 3ivx or h264 for my quicktime compression... -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: how do i up my video size?
Where do people stand on framerate these days? Whilst I find 15fps is ok for certain kinds of contents, it noticably spoils the experience for me when there is lots of movement going on. Anybody know what framerate much of the flash-reencoded footage ends up as from the likes of blip.tv etc? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, groups-yahoo-com@ wrote: If I may suggest. I am no expert on video encoding techniques, but I would consider myself an expert on playback and user experience. For exmaple I would recommend flash playback for in the browser if possible, and MP4 as your primary video format for compatibility with the most computers, software, and hardware like the iPod, and PSP. That said I have also recommended in the past and recommend now... that if you encode your videos at 320x240 that you present them on your blog by embedding them in the page at approximately 375x500 allowing for considerations due your page layout. Some people have a wider main column, and some people have a slightly narrower main column. I agree with your assessment as far as H.264's concerned. I'm very impressed with the scalability of a 320x180 (widescreen) H.264 video all the way to MacBook Pro full-screen (1680x1050). I'm not saying it looks GOOD at that size, but for the size it starts out, it does a great job. Josh may want to just edit his blog entries and increase the playing size of his 320x240 videos as you mentioned below. The problem with doing this vs making videos with larger frame sizes is when you have text in your video, like a lower 3rd, or a credit roll. Blow those up and they look like garbage... ESPECIALLY if they're moving. If that's not an issue for whomever's posting the videos, then playing larger than you posted it is a good idea. Don't actually encode the videos at an alternative larger size. It's really just a waste of time, server space and bandwidth. This doesn't make any sense. :) Frame size has no effect on server space or bandwidth. Data Rate is what you're talking about. You can make videos with larger frame sizes and the exact same data rate, and it's all the same to the computer. Speaking of which, this reminds me blip.tv even updated their cite about a month back to present all videos at 500 pixels... precisely what I recommended. i.e. http://blip.tv/file/122903/ The above example is a video encoded at 320x240 and presented at 500x375 as are virtually all the videos on blip.tv. ? no it isn't. If you download the source file for that video (http://blip.tv/file/get/ Bestdamntech-MickipediaPutsTheGeekInChic783.wmv) it's 768x480. It's also horribly compressed in the original source file, so it may actually be 320x240 footage expanded to 768x480 then contracted to 500x375. Also, how do the videos on blip become 500x375? Is that an encoding option? Does that happen only if you encode videos @ 320x240? I haven't seen that on blip's upload page OR in their upperblip application. -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv Virtually all the major video sharing services encode their videos at 320x240 but present the videos at 400 pixels, 500 pixels wide or more. Consider this too... it's a great way to enhance your viewing experience and it's absolutely *free*. It takes no more extra time, server space or bandwidth. Just specify. embed stc=http://urltoyourvideo.mov; width=500 height=375 the next time you embed your video. Or in whatever web side playback tool you use. Keep rocking Josh. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 1/8/07, Josh Leo joshleo@ wrote: I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in my video... I want to keep my horizontal dimension no larger than 420 how do i go about doing this.. and what are good dimensions? I use either 3ivx or h264 for my quicktime compression... -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Super Happy Vlog House 2007
I would be interested but I do not know where I will be living come April That's exactly what I was going to answer. We are moving, but not sure where, so I am also not sure where we'll be. Robyn From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heath Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:49 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Super Happy Vlog House 2007 I would be interested but I do not know where I will be living come April heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com , Susan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow... anyone? Anyone at all? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com , Susan kitykity@ wrote: Happy 2007! I have been going crazy between moving, work, and everything else... but now that we are in the new house, I wanted to stir back up discussion about Super Happy Vlog House! http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com/ It will be April Fool's Day Weekend. Ryanne had the awesome idea that we should have them across the country, so that people could have the chance to host one, and perhaps some wouldn't have to travel as far. I think that's an awesome idea! If you have a house you'd like to offer up, please add it to the wiki. Also, I had come up with the concept of having different themes for each house--like mine will be a music video theme, where others might have a fiction story theme, or a diary/journalling theme, or an interviewing theme, etc. This weekend is not for vlogging awards. It's not for just sitting and listening to lectures. It's about working on our own videos for our video blogs, meeting up with friends, and bouncing ideas off each other for 24 hours straight (and then some). So if you'd like to be involved, and if you'd like to attend, please let me know. You can email me or post your thoughts and ideas to the wiki. Can't wait to see you at the house! Susan http://vlog.kitykity.com PS - I'm working on a music video right now as I type--of course, it's another Adam song, but not a collaboration this time--keep an eye on my vlog for it to show up in the next couple days! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FPS setting for high motion video?
Where do people stand on framerate these days? Whilst I find 15fps is ok for certain kinds of contents, it noticably spoils the experience for me when there is lots of movement going on. Anybody know what framerate much of the flash-reencoded footage ends up as from the likes of blip.tv etc? Cheers Steve Elbows I would be interested in this discussion as well. Can 15 fps deliver nice video with high motion? I think the .mov files I post at http://k9disc.blip.tv do a pretty good job, and I believe they are 15 fps. (Pick an outdoor vid for high motion.) Can I do better with a different frame rate? I just went with 15 because I thought it would at least be an even motion, being half ntsc and all. I'd love to hear more about this. Cheers, Ron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] ReelSolid on CurrentTV
I uploaded a video about this weekend's Three Kings' Day Parade to Current TV, and it was accepted for voting! :D Now I get to see if I get enough votes to get it on the actual channel, hehe :D http://reelsolid.tv/2007/01/08/current-tv/ -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
[videoblogging] Re: Hello everyone! (an introduction)
Welcome, always room for one more. Do you or your company have a blog/vlog that we can check out? Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andres Palmiter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My name's Andres and I work with Tim Shey at Next New Networks (an internet video start up), researching all the videoblogs everyone is producing. Recently, I began feeling too much like a voyeur, keeping quiet while I watched all your videos, so I thought I'd introduce myself. I used to write for Engadget (very, very briefly) and am just floored by the creativity of videoblogging and the possibilities for the medium (community/group projects, in particular, really interest me -- though I end up watching just about everything). Shoot me an email! I'm sure everyone here knows a lot more than I do and I'm eager to learn. Thanks! -- Andres Palmiter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[videoblogging] Re: FPS setting for high motion video?
Those do seem quite good. I suppose there may be other factors which make some of the 15fps stuff Ive seen seem much more jerky than your videos, Ive never worked out why I seem to notice it more with certain videos, and be put off it, and not others. I guess 15fps might be slightly less appropriate for people in PAL countries where the standard framearate is 25, and so 15 is not halving the framerate. But I think theres some other factors at work, dunno. Last time I discussed this here, it seemed I was in a minority with my complaining about 15fps. Certainly traditional TV, and some areas of the 'science of motion pictures', suggests that 25 or 30 fps, 50 or 60 fps interlaced, is necessary to give results that really look smooth to the mind (similar to rate of fluorescent tube lighting rate needing to be 50Hz or much higher to avoid the brain picking up flickering). And some gamers spend quite a lot of money trying to get high framerates of over 100fps for maximum gaming experience, but I guess just like resolution, video on the internet has proved that much lower rates can be gotten away with without totally spoiling the experience. If anybody is curious Id say just try encoding your footage at the native framerate of your camera, and see how much you can or cannot tell the difference. Your files wont end up twice as large or anything like that, under most circumstances, for reasons I wont waffle about right now. I guess its probably not worth losing any sleep over either way, would love it if people ocasionally revisited the issue rather than everyone 15fps-ing it just because its what they've gotten used to doing, but the more I think about it the more I recall how unimportant it seemed to end up when I waffled about this 18 months-2 years ago. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in this discussion as well. Can 15 fps deliver nice video with high motion? I think the .mov files I post at http://k9disc.blip.tv do a pretty good job, and I believe they are 15 fps. (Pick an outdoor vid for high motion.) Can I do better with a different frame rate? I just went with 15 because I thought it would at least be an even motion, being half ntsc and all. I'd love to hear more about this. Cheers, Ron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ipod film festival + question
I used to have QuickTime Pro, but when QT forced me to upgrade, it also took away my pro and I can't afford to pay $30 twice, so QT compression is something I can no longer use. On 1/7/07, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 08.01.2007 kl. 00:47 skrev Gromik Tohoku [EMAIL PROTECTED]gromik_tohoku%40yahoo.com.au : So I think this is a great idea, but How do you compress a film for ipod? Never done it myself? Will Movie Maker allow for ipod compression? should the film be in avi format prior to ipod compression? Movie Maker can't do it. Save an uncompressed AVI from Movie Maker, open that in Quicktime Pro and use the iPod preset from File - Export... to get an iPod-compatible file. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Bev Sykes http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com http://funnytheworld.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: FPS setting for high motion video?
The issue with 15/30fps is not just file size. CPU utilization is also a concern. H.264 and On2 VP6 (Flash 8 video) are extremely CPU-intensive, and other codecs are as well but to a lesser extent. Going from 15 to 30 fps doubles your CPU utilization on decompression. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:31 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: FPS setting for high motion video? Those do seem quite good. I suppose there may be other factors which make some of the 15fps stuff Ive seen seem much more jerky than your videos, Ive never worked out why I seem to notice it more with certain videos, and be put off it, and not others. I guess 15fps might be slightly less appropriate for people in PAL countries where the standard framearate is 25, and so 15 is not halving the framerate. But I think theres some other factors at work, dunno. Last time I discussed this here, it seemed I was in a minority with my complaining about 15fps. Certainly traditional TV, and some areas of the 'science of motion pictures', suggests that 25 or 30 fps, 50 or 60 fps interlaced, is necessary to give results that really look smooth to the mind (similar to rate of fluorescent tube lighting rate needing to be 50Hz or much higher to avoid the brain picking up flickering). And some gamers spend quite a lot of money trying to get high framerates of over 100fps for maximum gaming experience, but I guess just like resolution, video on the internet has proved that much lower rates can be gotten away with without totally spoiling the experience. If anybody is curious Id say just try encoding your footage at the native framerate of your camera, and see how much you can or cannot tell the difference. Your files wont end up twice as large or anything like that, under most circumstances, for reasons I wont waffle about right now. I guess its probably not worth losing any sleep over either way, would love it if people ocasionally revisited the issue rather than everyone 15fps-ing it just because its what they've gotten used to doing, but the more I think about it the more I recall how unimportant it seemed to end up when I waffled about this 18 months-2 years ago. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in this discussion as well. Can 15 fps deliver nice video with high motion? I think the .mov files I post at http://k9disc.blip.tv do a pretty good job, and I believe they are 15 fps. (Pick an outdoor vid for high motion.) Can I do better with a different frame rate? I just went with 15 because I thought it would at least be an even motion, being half ntsc and all. I'd love to hear more about this. Cheers, Ron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FPS setting for high motion video 15 or 29.97
Wow! What a difference... I checked my cpu usage on each playing in QTPro and there was a difference: 29.97 fps ran @ 23-25MB and 15 fps ran @ 21-22.5MB - fairly negligible on my machines... I wonder if will have greater impact on other people's machines. The entire tone of the video was different. I have uploaded the new video: 29.97 fps: http://blip.tv/file/get/K9disc-RememberTheSun2997Fps973.mov 15 fps: http://blip.tv/file/get/K9disc- theArtOfK9DiscRememberTheSun514.mov It is a huge improvement, and am thinking I am going to do all my stuff on 29.97. I had no idea the file size was so similar. Anyone know what this does to the Flash versions in terms of quality? Thanks so much Steve... Cheers, Ron On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: The issue with 15/30fps is not just file size. CPU utilization is also a concern. H.264 and On2 VP6 (Flash 8 video) are extremely CPU-intensive, and other codecs are as well but to a lesser extent. Going from 15 to 30 fps doubles your CPU utilization on decompression. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:31 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: FPS setting for high motion video? Those do seem quite good. I suppose there may be other factors which make some of the 15fps stuff Ive seen seem much more jerky than your videos, Ive never worked out why I seem to notice it more with certain videos, and be put off it, and not others. I guess 15fps might be slightly less appropriate for people in PAL countries where the standard framearate is 25, and so 15 is not halving the framerate. But I think theres some other factors at work, dunno. Last time I discussed this here, it seemed I was in a minority with my complaining about 15fps. Certainly traditional TV, and some areas of the 'science of motion pictures', suggests that 25 or 30 fps, 50 or 60 fps interlaced, is necessary to give results that really look smooth to the mind (similar to rate of fluorescent tube lighting rate needing to be 50Hz or much higher to avoid the brain picking up flickering). And some gamers spend quite a lot of money trying to get high framerates of over 100fps for maximum gaming experience, but I guess just like resolution, video on the internet has proved that much lower rates can be gotten away with without totally spoiling the experience. If anybody is curious Id say just try encoding your footage at the native framerate of your camera, and see how much you can or cannot tell the difference. Your files wont end up twice as large or anything like that, under most circumstances, for reasons I wont waffle about right now. I guess its probably not worth losing any sleep over either way, would love it if people ocasionally revisited the issue rather than everyone 15fps-ing it just because its what they've gotten used to doing, but the more I think about it the more I recall how unimportant it seemed to end up when I waffled about this 18 months-2 years ago. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in this discussion as well. Can 15 fps deliver nice video with high motion? I think the .mov files I post at http://k9disc.blip.tv do a pretty good job, and I believe they are 15 fps. (Pick an outdoor vid for high motion.) Can I do better with a different frame rate? I just went with 15 because I thought it would at least be an even motion, being half ntsc and all. I'd love to hear more about this. Cheers, Ron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
