Re: [videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
It matters. I just emailed them to fix it. No link back to permalink of blog entry ( it's in the feed ) http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ No display of CC license ( it's in the feed ) http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: if sites like network2 are opt-in now, then I suppose it doesnt amtter so much if they dont show creative commons feed info? -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
[videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
Aha, interesting, I hadnt noticed the permalink issue. Their publishers page still says We build a page for each producer's show, complete with your show name, a link to your original website, links to your RSS feed (for an audience to subscribe), and links to the original media. so hopefully this is just some oversight when they redesigned their site - was it working as advertised in the past? Hmm I said I wouldnt still be ranting about network2 in 6 months, but that was based on no new violations of creators rights. Still, I feel more than a little awkward being in this territory again. I had hoped that the strong networking by network2's Chris Brogan, the participation of some vloggers in that VON and other meetups, and the participation by some members of this community in the network2 competition, meant there were exceedingly strong channels of communication between creators and network2, and that therefore this sort of thing was unlikely to happen. What do people think about them now including easily cutpasteable 'permalinks' for your videos, which are permalinks to the network2 page for the show, and also their embedded player, which I havent tried yet but suspect will be another feature designed to drive traffic to their site and not to the content creators. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It matters. I just emailed them to fix it. No link back to permalink of blog entry ( it's in the feed ) http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ No display of CC license ( it's in the feed ) http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: if sites like network2 are opt-in now, then I suppose it doesnt amtter so much if they dont show creative commons feed info? -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
[videoblogging] New blip.tv show player
Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
We build a page for each producer's show, complete with your show name, a link to your original website, links to your RSS feed (for an audience to subscribe), and links to the original media. I think that is an interesting statement. My 'original' website links to my RSS feed, and links to my 'original' media. The only problem is that they are not respecting my 'original' media. Or my original site. Or my RSS feed (or at least Steve's which has a proper CC in the feed...). They are creating new media with my content. That's uncool. I have yet to ask them to remove our show from their listings, as I have yet to do with Magnify.net, which I consider to be the same disrespectful business model of Pyro and My Heavy. These asshats need to start playing by some respectful rules. Just because they went out and whored themselves for big VC money doesn't give them the right to slurp up our content and give us some song and dance about how they really are helping us. For crying out loud! Is it that difficult to give a link and not to re-encode content, and to drive traffic to the original site? Of course it's not. They simply have zero respect for independent content creators. And that's the real rub, isn't it? I mean is anyone here not offended by the total lack of respect that they give all of us? I'd like to see a my heavy, pyro, magnify business model that was scraping corporate media's content. Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Aha, interesting, I hadnt noticed the permalink issue. Their publishers page still says We build a page for each producer's show, complete with your show name, a link to your original website, links to your RSS feed (for an audience to subscribe), and links to the original media. so hopefully this is just some oversight when they redesigned their site - was it working as advertised in the past? Hmm I said I wouldnt still be ranting about network2 in 6 months, but that was based on no new violations of creators rights. Still, I feel more than a little awkward being in this territory again. I had hoped that the strong networking by network2's Chris Brogan, the participation of some vloggers in that VON and other meetups, and the participation by some members of this community in the network2 competition, meant there were exceedingly strong channels of communication between creators and network2, and that therefore this sort of thing was unlikely to happen. What do people think about them now including easily cutpasteable 'permalinks' for your videos, which are permalinks to the network2 page for the show, and also their embedded player, which I havent tried yet but suspect will be another feature designed to drive traffic to their site and not to the content creators. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It matters. I just emailed them to fix it. No link back to permalink of blog entry ( it's in the feed ) http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ No display of CC license ( it's in the feed ) http://network2.tv/episode/2832833/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: if sites like network2 are opt-in now, then I suppose it doesnt amtter so much if they dont show creative commons feed info? -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] new videoblog: Karaoke DeathMatch 100 (AKA KDM100)
Hi Videobloggers, Some of you may know me for my work with TVTonic, but I'm also a bit of an artist and have been active with the net art scene since 1997. I work with a collaborator and we call ourselves MTAA (more info: http://mtaa.net). We're very happy to announce that our new piece, Karaoke DeathMatch 100 ( http://www.mteww.com/kdm100/) is online. It's a videoblog with 2 new videos posted everyday for the next 50 days. The videos are of my collaborator, M.River, and myself in a karaoke competition that we taped in our studio. We get more and more drunk as the piece progresses :) We encourage to visit the web site daily, vote and discuss (there's also feeds available). Hype more info below... Best, T.Whid +++ Karaoke DeathMatch 100 (AKA KDM100) New rounds daily from April 15 2007 - June 4, 2007! on the web: http://www.mteww.com/kdm100/ +++ hype: Artist collaborative M.River T.Whid Art Associates face off in the most brutal performance art smack down of the new millennium Karaoke Deathmatch 100! This alcohol-fueled blood feud features 50 rounds of sing-along fury (taped live over an 8-hour period with hardly any pee breaks). No Carpenters hit too cheesy, no heavy metal lyric too trite for these teleprompter warriors to hurl in a battle to the end. Who will emerge victorious? Only YOU can decide. description: MTAA's Karaoke DeathMatch 100 is a video blog performance that takes place over 50 days starting April 15th, 2007 and ending June 4th, 2007. Each day, a new round is posted pitting M.River T.Whid against each other in drunken karaoke competition. Visit the web site daily to view the sets of videos, vote for your favorite and discuss the artists' performances. At the end of the competition, the votes will decide who is the Karaoke DeathMatch 100 Champion. The web version of KDM100 is an official selection of Visual 07. 7º Festival De Creación Audiovisual Ciudad De Majadahonda (http://www.visual-ma.com/). The gallery version of KDM100 premiered at the Leonart '05 ( http://www.leonding.at/leonart/05/) art festival in Leonding, Austria. KDM100 was shot in May 2005 over 8 hours. + credits + video production: Bill Hallinan, Andre Sala and George Su web production: MTAA; developed using open-source software: Wordpress (http://wordpress.org), X-Poll (http://www.hotscripts.com/Detailed/41118.html ) and embedthevideo ( http://embedthevideo.com/). URLs: web site: http://www.mteww.com/kdm100/ QuickTime feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/kdm100m4v Windows Media feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/kdm100wmv also available in iTunes... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
Ahh I get you, the confusion is still about the term 'simple profile'. Simple profile is, as I said before, an mpeg4 profile, not a h264 one. Ive looked at the Apple specs, and I think you mean 'low complexity baseline profile'... * H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Low-Complexity version of the Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats * H.264 video, up to 768 kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats * MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats So yeah, for 640x480 res stuff to work on the ipod, it either needs to be either Low-Complexity baseline profile h264, or simple profile mpeg4. I know how you can do simple profile in mpeg4 in quicktime, but admit Im not sure how to activate low-complexity encoding using manual h264 settings in quicktime. I'll see if I can find out, anybody know if it can be done? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chumley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Baseline works fine in h.264 320x240 for ipods, but baseline profile in 640x480 h.264 is not ipod compatable at any bitrate. In order for it to be ipod compatable at 640x480 it has to be in the new Simple h.264 profile. I've tried every bitrate I can think of in h.264 with baseline profile but none of them will transfer if its in 640x480. Straight MP4 will work, but it looks terrible compared to h.264 and the file size is always larger.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
Hi everyone: On 4/14/07, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Bottom line - Large screen resolution doesn't amount to squat. It's VIDEO QUALITY. If the QUALITY of the video is crappy, then you can make the screen resolution WALLSIZED and it'd still be crappy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the tutorials still up on MeFeedia? Hope this helps :D What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky [EMAIL PROTECTED]: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Grace at http://www.fearlesscooking.tv used it in her new post. I like the built in episode guide. The text for the episode description is a bit small (in terms of my parents being able to read it!). It'd be nice if there was a clearer Commenting Link. I may have missed it but I think now you have to click on Read More About This Post on Blip. Maybe we'll see a shift from blog structured websites to more emphasis on custom site design around a single embedded player. Variety would be nice, the blog structure isn't really ideal for all. Neato. AV http://www.aaronvaldez.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] New blip.tv show player
I put the new blip.tv player on my 'homepage' this morning. http://www.stevegarfield.com/ I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/04/blip-video-player.html In the blog post I say, vlogs are dead. ;-) It's a joke, but also ironic since the reason for initially using blogs to post video in the first place was a technical one. There wasn't any easy way to post video to the web. Once I figured out that I could put video in a blog post, I got a very easy way to publish videos, along with the added benefits of that video being included in a blog post. But that method, over time, introduced the problems of old videos getting lost in archives, and not having an easy way to browse through videos. There are a lot of companies now bringing to the market ways to make it easy to surf videos and I'm glad that blip.tv has given me a way to allow people to browse my archives that are hosted with blip.tv. --Steve On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
Re: [videoblogging] New blip.tv show player
Aaron Steve - you bring up some good points. I do think options for people are important and I do like the ability to look through an archive but the price is that you loose all the other benefits of a blog - permalinks, comments, context, choice of video size and formats. That player is really built on the idea that your blip.tv blog is your blog. So it only shows and links back to your blog posts on blip. Comments? They have to go on the blip blog (as long as the viewer know to click through to the blip blog to leave a comment). Plus you have to have the blip hot shows menu. That thing pulls in stuff completely out of context that you have no control over. Of course you do have control in that you certainly don't have to use the show player at all. I just think the blog part of videoblogging is important and desirable and I feel a little sad when people are so excited about dropping it. - Verdi On 4/15/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put the new blip.tv player on my 'homepage' this morning. http://www.stevegarfield.com/ I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/04/blip-video-player.html In the blog post I say, vlogs are dead. ;-) It's a joke, but also ironic since the reason for initially using blogs to post video in the first place was a technical one. There wasn't any easy way to post video to the web. Once I figured out that I could put video in a blog post, I got a very easy way to publish videos, along with the added benefits of that video being included in a blog post. But that method, over time, introduced the problems of old videos getting lost in archives, and not having an easy way to browse through videos. There are a lot of companies now bringing to the market ways to make it easy to surf videos and I'm glad that blip.tv has given me a way to allow people to browse my archives that are hosted with blip.tv. --Steve On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Verdilicious - Points well taken. I think the blog format isn't for everyone. I've switched one of my three videoblogs back over to standard site because I found I didn't need things like commenting, permalinks, or categories. I use my blip acct to update RSS subscribers on this site. My other two sites that include a big chunk of text and photos along with video in their posts are meant for a blog format. Like anything I think people should evaluate what they are doing, what they want to do and find the best suitable format. (It would be nice to have a customizable player sort of like wordpress widgets where you can pick and choose what elements are included on your player.) AV --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron Steve - you bring up some good points. I do think options for people are important and I do like the ability to look through an archive but the price is that you loose all the other benefits of a blog - permalinks, comments, context, choice of video size and formats. That player is really built on the idea that your blip.tv blog is your blog. So it only shows and links back to your blog posts on blip. Comments? They have to go on the blip blog (as long as the viewer know to click through to the blip blog to leave a comment). Plus you have to have the blip hot shows menu. That thing pulls in stuff completely out of context that you have no control over. Of course you do have control in that you certainly don't have to use the show player at all. I just think the blog part of videoblogging is important and desirable and I feel a little sad when people are so excited about dropping it. - Verdi On 4/15/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put the new blip.tv player on my 'homepage' this morning. http://www.stevegarfield.com/ I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/04/blip-video-player.html In the blog post I say, vlogs are dead. ;-) It's a joke, but also ironic since the reason for initially using blogs to post video in the first place was a technical one. There wasn't any easy way to post video to the web. Once I figured out that I could put video in a blog post, I got a very easy way to publish videos, along with the added benefits of that video being included in a blog post. But that method, over time, introduced the problems of old videos getting lost in archives, and not having an easy way to browse through videos. There are a lot of companies now bringing to the market ways to make it easy to surf videos and I'm glad that blip.tv has given me a way to allow people to browse my archives that are hosted with blip.tv. --Steve On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!
Kasey, Please reconsider your comment on Canadian content. Generally, American-style media, namely entertainment for its own sake, is void of content even if the production is great. This style of McMedia has spread worldwide like McDonald's junk food. Globalization, while offering many benefits, also has the rather nasty effect of erasing cultural distinction. In the US itself the last bastion of content, PBS (TV) and NPR (radio), are under attack. Freedom does not mean no regulation. Without regulation, schools would not be teaching literacy, art, history science and ignorance would be common. (How free are you when ignorant?) Without regulation, artists that are not popular yet skilled, imaginative, and different, would have no venue for expression, let alone money to continue their art. I really think you may want to reconsider whether Canadian television 'sucks' because it is badly filmed, or whether it does not provide you with the stimuli/numbness we all get when watching McMedia. Doc P http://spacegeek.org/ http://Spacegeek.org cell: +1(250)884-6364 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] New blip.tv show player
Michael, For some people the blog format is really important. Cross-posting, copy paste and everything else we've built to support the blog format aren't going away. We're going to keep those features, and we're going to keep improving them. It's just that the blog format isn't right for everyone. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Verdi Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [videoblogging] New blip.tv show player Aaron Steve - you bring up some good points. I do think options for people are important and I do like the ability to look through an archive but the price is that you loose all the other benefits of a blog - permalinks, comments, context, choice of video size and formats. That player is really built on the idea that your blip.tv blog is your blog. So it only shows and links back to your blog posts on blip. Comments? They have to go on the blip blog (as long as the viewer know to click through to the blip blog to leave a comment). Plus you have to have the blip hot shows menu. That thing pulls in stuff completely out of context that you have no control over. Of course you do have control in that you certainly don't have to use the show player at all. I just think the blog part of videoblogging is important and desirable and I feel a little sad when people are so excited about dropping it. - Verdi On 4/15/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put the new blip.tv player on my 'homepage' this morning. http://www.stevegarfield.com/ I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/04/blip-video-player.html In the blog post I say, vlogs are dead. ;-) It's a joke, but also ironic since the reason for initially using blogs to post video in the first place was a technical one. There wasn't any easy way to post video to the web. Once I figured out that I could put video in a blog post, I got a very easy way to publish videos, along with the added benefits of that video being included in a blog post. But that method, over time, introduced the problems of old videos getting lost in archives, and not having an easy way to browse through videos. There are a lot of companies now bringing to the market ways to make it easy to surf videos and I'm glad that blip.tv has given me a way to allow people to browse my archives that are hosted with blip.tv. --Steve On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Offering both makes a lot of sense to me. I dream of this stuff being pushed to the extreme and for it to be possible for a blog like experience to be completely available from within a flash player. Complexities quickly arise when the people providing the player are hosting your videos, but are not responsible for the rest of your blog, it leads to an understandable focus on the video hosting page rather than your blog page. This may not be considered a probem because the expectation may be that you embed their player in your site, and your site provides all the other bloggy stuff you want. But this doesnt cover scenarios where our show player may be embedded on another site or used as a widget. I see the guide button is optional, and its easy to rebrand the player so that its got your own site in the bottom right hand corner, which is a clickable link pointing to the URL of your choice. Id love to see the creative commons stuff thats been requested in the past, be rolled out into this show player in the future, whether it be through a little cc icon on the bottom bar of the player, or the inclusion of this info in the popup 'about this episode' tab. I agree about the font size, hmm this stuff starts to get a bit tricky, a big decision to break away from the player being 320x240. I see that Veoh's player is rather large now, but this makes it look quite good and leaves more room for additional info overlays to be displayed in a larger font. Some other services have really wide players with separate episode bars to one side of the video. Personally Im fascinated by the idea of a flash player for wordpress that can display the entire blog, text video etc, in the flash player. I was looking at WPF/E but I think I'll ignore that technology for now, and go buymyself a copy of flash and join the fun. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael, For some people the blog format is really important. Cross-posting, copy paste and everything else we've built to support the blog format aren't going away. We're going to keep those features, and we're going to keep improving them. It's just that the blog format isn't right for everyone. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Verdi Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [videoblogging] New blip.tv show player Aaron Steve - you bring up some good points. I do think options for people are important and I do like the ability to look through an archive but the price is that you loose all the other benefits of a blog - permalinks, comments, context, choice of video size and formats. That player is really built on the idea that your blip.tv blog is your blog. So it only shows and links back to your blog posts on blip. Comments? They have to go on the blip blog (as long as the viewer know to click through to the blip blog to leave a comment). Plus you have to have the blip hot shows menu. That thing pulls in stuff completely out of context that you have no control over. Of course you do have control in that you certainly don't have to use the show player at all. I just think the blog part of videoblogging is important and desirable and I feel a little sad when people are so excited about dropping it. - Verdi On 4/15/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put the new blip.tv player on my 'homepage' this morning. http://www.stevegarfield.com/ I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/04/blip-video-player.html In the blog post I say, vlogs are dead. ;-) It's a joke, but also ironic since the reason for initially using blogs to post video in the first place was a technical one. There wasn't any easy way to post video to the web. Once I figured out that I could put video in a blog post, I got a very easy way to publish videos, along with the added benefits of that video being included in a blog post. But that method, over time, introduced the problems of old videos getting lost in archives, and not having an easy way to browse through videos. There are a lot of companies now bringing to the market ways to make it easy to surf videos and I'm glad that blip.tv has given me a way to allow people to browse my archives that are hosted with blip.tv. --Steve On Apr 15, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows I think this is probably one of the most important examples of where video is headed: the containment of all information in the video container. Containing descriptive text, links, comments, etc. Video travels outside the website to mobile devices, internet TVs, etc. It needs to contain all it's information along the way and this feature shows this capability. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
The customizable branding is terrific! John
Re: [videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) On 4/15/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows I think this is probably one of the most important examples of where video is headed: the containment of all information in the video container. Containing descriptive text, links, comments, etc. Video travels outside the website to mobile devices, internet TVs, etc. It needs to contain all it's information along the way and this feature shows this capability. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com -- joshpaul o: 818-237-5200 c: 818-667-0900 w: joshpaul.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!
Doctor P, I realise your comments were directed at Casey, but my own 2 cents: Your intentions are right in combating what you see as McMedia, but personally I find it hard to believe that geographically based programming quotas lead to better quality. i don't want to get into a whole Positive Discrimination discussion here. Oh, hell, I guess it's impossible not to. but i don't think you can really conflate all the issues that you've mentioned. makes for a nice emotive argument to say 'without regulation, schools would not be teaching xxx', but this is a different argument. i don't think many people think that all regulation is bad. it's part of our system of checks and balances to preserve our freedoms and rights and quality of life. but it *can* get out of control, and needs itself to be checked. different types of regulations come with their own areas of concern. there are specific problems - both practical and ethical - that arise from regulating broadcasting, information and the internet according to state boundaries. to regulate for quality (however one does that) can be a good thing, and in the UK those who receive public funds (BBC and others) are judged by quality and public service standards, as well as having to fulfil a UK production quota. one of the joys of internet video is that the production values and distribution methods mean that niches can be served in a way that they can't be in MSM. so regulating it with the intention of de- Americanizing and improving quality is not only unnecessary, it's potentially counterproductive, putting restrictions on niche producers. Finally, I don't know if I agree with your characterisation of most American content as namely entertainment for its own sake, is void of content even if the production is great. I've seen a lot of TV from around the world, including Canadian TV, and I think that the main bulk of TV *anywhere* fits your description. Including the UK. Trash TV in the UK is as bad as trash TV in America, Italy, Japan - they're all crazy and inane, and make up 95% of all programs, probably. The important area for judgement of quality IMO is in the high quality programming. UK TV is considered some of the best quality TV in the world. We have some factual programming that's great (it's being eroded) but I am hard pushed to think of a UK drama or comedy that is as inventive as complex as the big American exports - Sopranos, Seinfeld, Sex City, West Wing, going back to Twin Peaks and beyond. We make great period dramas. Occasionally. But they're pretty filmmaking-by-numbers. Good American TV is the best in the world, I think. These American shows won't get shown at primetime on the main 2 British networks, largely I think because of the UK regulations. They would blow most UK shows out of the water, and so because we don't have to compete, we don't rise to the challenge. So to restrict programming in this way can actually be anticompetitive and patronising. Anyway, that's more than 2 cents. And it's probably all bullshit. But it's my instinctive reaction. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 15 Apr 2007, at 18:04, doctor P wrote: Kasey, Please reconsider your comment on Canadian content. Generally, American-style media, namely entertainment for its own sake, is void of content even if the production is great. This style of McMedia has spread worldwide like McDonald's junk food. Globalization, while offering many benefits, also has the rather nasty effect of erasing cultural distinction. In the US itself the last bastion of content, PBS (TV) and NPR (radio), are under attack. Freedom does not mean no regulation. Without regulation, schools would not be teaching literacy, art, history science and ignorance would be common. (How free are you when ignorant?) Without regulation, artists that are not popular yet skilled, imaginative, and different, would have no venue for expression, let alone money to continue their art. I really think you may want to reconsider whether Canadian television 'sucks' because it is badly filmed, or whether it does not provide you with the stimuli/numbness we all get when watching McMedia. Doc P http://spacegeek.org/ http://Spacegeek.org cell: +1(250)884-6364 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!
Agree. The original fear these sorts of regulations were designed to guard against, is that American companies would end up owning all the tv networks, and wouldnt bother making any local programming. Whereas if any media monopolies appear on the net, its less likely as a result of them strangulating the competition, but perhaps viewers choosing to go to that site. I think if they do decide to act, it will be mostly through trying to provide stuff to give their own domestic internet video companies a leg up. And at worst they could dictate what %age of content Canadian internet video companies host promote. And oops I used even more extreme emotive example of why regulation sometimes needed, in a previous post I mentioned kids up chimneys. I boradly agree withyou about the UK stuff, although I think that started to change long before the internet, getting a few more channels has opened the floodgates, and there have been some US shows like 'Lost' that have been very heavily promoted. Didnt the BBC show 24 for a few seasons? Yeah we sure do create out fair share of trash TV in the UK, US citizens are probably aware of this as I believe Benny Hill was on of our stronger exports to that part of the world! Some of my favorite TV shows have been American, but I disagree with you about British comedy, which hasnt been as hot in the last few years but sometimes creates interesting stuff ont he surreal side of the spectrum. No idea how well any of it exports, The Office was the last big export I know of but it was remade for the American audience, I dont want to see that version. Has Extras or things like The Mighty Boosh made it over the Atlantic? Id never like to guess what comedy translates to different cultures, was funny seeing Borat in action Stateside :) Id bet heavily that if regulation is kept at bay for years, then a trigger for it eventually ariving would be once net video enters a mature phase where it is possible that entrenched service monopolies could exist, and government will decide it has to act to 'give the consumer choice'. The EU kicking Microsofts ass could be the EU spanking youtube 10 years down the line, who knows. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doctor P, I realise your comments were directed at Casey, but my own 2 cents: Your intentions are right in combating what you see as McMedia, but personally I find it hard to believe that geographically based programming quotas lead to better quality. i don't want to get into a whole Positive Discrimination discussion here. Oh, hell, I guess it's impossible not to. but i don't think you can really conflate all the issues that you've mentioned. makes for a nice emotive argument to say 'without regulation, schools would not be teaching xxx', but this is a different argument. i don't think many people think that all regulation is bad. it's part of our system of checks and balances to preserve our freedoms and rights and quality of life. but it *can* get out of control, and needs itself to be checked. different types of regulations come with their own areas of concern. there are specific problems - both practical and ethical - that arise from regulating broadcasting, information and the internet according to state boundaries. to regulate for quality (however one does that) can be a good thing, and in the UK those who receive public funds (BBC and others) are judged by quality and public service standards, as well as having to fulfil a UK production quota. one of the joys of internet video is that the production values and distribution methods mean that niches can be served in a way that they can't be in MSM. so regulating it with the intention of de- Americanizing and improving quality is not only unnecessary, it's potentially counterproductive, putting restrictions on niche producers. Finally, I don't know if I agree with your characterisation of most American content as namely entertainment for its own sake, is void of content even if the production is great. I've seen a lot of TV from around the world, including Canadian TV, and I think that the main bulk of TV *anywhere* fits your description. Including the UK. Trash TV in the UK is as bad as trash TV in America, Italy, Japan - they're all crazy and inane, and make up 95% of all programs, probably. The important area for judgement of quality IMO is in the high quality programming. UK TV is considered some of the best quality TV in the world. We have some factual programming that's great (it's being eroded) but I am hard pushed to think of a UK drama or comedy that is as inventive as complex as the big American exports - Sopranos, Seinfeld, Sex City, West Wing, going back to Twin Peaks and beyond. We make great period dramas. Occasionally. But they're pretty filmmaking-by-numbers. Good
Re: [videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
There are a lot of these players coming out now. If it were possible to create permalinks so that a link would take you to the site AND make the player play a certain episode, that'd be perfect. Crowdabout.us have recently released a similar large Show player - 2 weeks ago - and allowed anonymous commenting without logging into their site (which you had to do before). So you and your viewers can use their commenting and posting system, putting information and conversations at specific points along the timeline of your videos (with great RSS). I strongly advise you to check it out. It runs straight off your Blip RSS - they just pull in your flv files from Blip and then allow their commenting. At the moment, though, I want people to be able to link to specific episodes, not just watch the latest by default. I wrote to Crowdabout.us and asked them if they could produce another player, which allowed specific episodes to be played within individual permalinked blog posts. I hope they're going to do it. If they do, I will switch straightaway to using their players. The show player on the Home page and the individual players within the individual post pages. This kind of functionality is moving towards what Steve Elbows has talked about here for a long time and which I am always very excited about the possibility of - everything contained within one player - a multipurpose blog tool. The idea of making the videos themselves richer with easy custom hyperlinks and hotspots is also something I salivate over. I think people will start to build all this stuff in as the more advanced players get more popular. Wish it would all happen right now, though. Technologically, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't. Surely just a question of incentive, energy and inspiration. Maybe Elbows will come up with some blueprints - now he's overcome his Flashphobia ;) If I can help at all, even just as a sounding board, let me know. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 15 Apr 2007, at 19:45, joshpaul wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) On 4/15/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows I think this is probably one of the most important examples of where video is headed: the containment of all information in the video container. Containing descriptive text, links, comments, etc. Video travels outside the website to mobile devices, internet TVs, etc. It needs to contain all it's information along the way and this feature shows this capability. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com -- joshpaul o: 818-237-5200 c: 818-667-0900 w: joshpaul.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? _apple?
I am confused. Can someone read my setting's below in previous question osted? I am told apple tv is: 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec., and I am also told this: Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Can someone make this clear for me? Also see question below. Thanks. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/14/07, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Bottom line - Large screen resolution doesn't amount to squat. It's VIDEO QUALITY. If the QUALITY of the video is crappy, then you can make the screen resolution WALLSIZED and it'd still be crappy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the tutorials still up on MeFeedia? Hope this helps :D What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky carter@: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
May be worth bringing up at the Microformats for Media Web 2.0 Expo Open session lead by Mary Hodder (Tue 2 pm.) I'll mention it. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, joshpaul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) On 4/15/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows I think this is probably one of the most important examples of where video is headed: the containment of all information in the video container. Containing descriptive text, links, comments, etc. Video travels outside the website to mobile devices, internet TVs, etc. It needs to contain all it's information along the way and this feature shows this capability. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com -- joshpaul o: 818-237-5200 c: 818-667-0900 w: joshpaul.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
I reckon part of the cause of that is that many implementations of embedded metadata were done many years before video took off on the net. So there are cobwebs all over the place, no buzz, no hoards of would-be web 2 billionaries creating new versions of the tools, and largely no recognition by the original implementers (eg Apple with quicktime) that they could dig up these slumbering efforts and merge them with the new generation of net video syndication smil and whatever. It wouldnt be easy, theres a bit too much overlap, and things arent joined up enough. Its a pain for the user to enter the metadata into the media with the poor GUI things like quicktime give to do it. Then no site/software bothers reading this embedded information, or your video gets transcoded into another format and its lost. SMIL could be used and could be embedded in a mov, but then pure mp4 is mor compatible with a range of devices. And quicktime supports SMIL 1 and real player on my phone supports SMIL 2. Mess, mess, mess. So I gave up on that sort of thing, and look to flash to provide a glossy wrapper that delivers the results that would ideally be possible using 1 technology embedded metadata, but in reality are coming from all sorts of different sources and are mashed together nicely. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, joshpaul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) On 4/15/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows I think this is probably one of the most important examples of where video is headed: the containment of all information in the video container. Containing descriptive text, links, comments, etc. Video travels outside the website to mobile devices, internet TVs, etc. It needs to contain all it's information along the way and this feature shows this capability. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com -- joshpaul o: 818-237-5200 c: 818-667-0900 w: joshpaul.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!
Yeah, Steve. Stupid of me to say Comedy as well as Drama. Drama is poor generally but we have good comedy, still. Office, Boosh, Spaced, Black Books, Peter Kay, have been some of the best TV I've seen... It is interesting, though, that they all last very few episodes compared to US series. And most of them are on the secondary channels, getting very low audience share until quite late on, if ever. My point about US drama was not that it's not here and not hyped - it is - my point was just that it's not allowed on the big channels. Lost was shown on Channel 4, which always has a low audience share and is allowed more US exports under its license. Because they couldn't afford to keep it, season 3 has gone to Murdoch on Sky 1, which is unregulated and also has a low audience share. Ditto 24, which was originally shown on minority channel BBC 2. With 2-3 million viewers. (I got half of that for my short documentaries about real women called Bridget Jones!) And I remember it was the same with Twin Peaks 10 years ago - they just aren't allowed to compete with the (IMO) lower quality UK drama fare that's pumped out on the big channels. Thus we don't have to raise our game. Anyway. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 15 Apr 2007, at 20:24, Steve Watkins wrote: Agree. The original fear these sorts of regulations were designed to guard against, is that American companies would end up owning all the tv networks, and wouldnt bother making any local programming. Whereas if any media monopolies appear on the net, its less likely as a result of them strangulating the competition, but perhaps viewers choosing to go to that site. I think if they do decide to act, it will be mostly through trying to provide stuff to give their own domestic internet video companies a leg up. And at worst they could dictate what %age of content Canadian internet video companies host promote. And oops I used even more extreme emotive example of why regulation sometimes needed, in a previous post I mentioned kids up chimneys. I boradly agree withyou about the UK stuff, although I think that started to change long before the internet, getting a few more channels has opened the floodgates, and there have been some US shows like 'Lost' that have been very heavily promoted. Didnt the BBC show 24 for a few seasons? Yeah we sure do create out fair share of trash TV in the UK, US citizens are probably aware of this as I believe Benny Hill was on of our stronger exports to that part of the world! Some of my favorite TV shows have been American, but I disagree with you about British comedy, which hasnt been as hot in the last few years but sometimes creates interesting stuff ont he surreal side of the spectrum. No idea how well any of it exports, The Office was the last big export I know of but it was remade for the American audience, I dont want to see that version. Has Extras or things like The Mighty Boosh made it over the Atlantic? Id never like to guess what comedy translates to different cultures, was funny seeing Borat in action Stateside :) Id bet heavily that if regulation is kept at bay for years, then a trigger for it eventually ariving would be once net video enters a mature phase where it is possible that entrenched service monopolies could exist, and government will decide it has to act to 'give the consumer choice'. The EU kicking Microsofts ass could be the EU spanking youtube 10 years down the line, who knows. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doctor P, I realise your comments were directed at Casey, but my own 2 cents: Your intentions are right in combating what you see as McMedia, but personally I find it hard to believe that geographically based programming quotas lead to better quality. i don't want to get into a whole Positive Discrimination discussion here. Oh, hell, I guess it's impossible not to. but i don't think you can really conflate all the issues that you've mentioned. makes for a nice emotive argument to say 'without regulation, schools would not be teaching xxx', but this is a different argument. i don't think many people think that all regulation is bad. it's part of our system of checks and balances to preserve our freedoms and rights and quality of life. but it *can* get out of control, and needs itself to be checked. different types of regulations come with their own areas of concern. there are specific problems - both practical and ethical - that arise from regulating broadcasting, information and the internet according to state boundaries. to regulate for quality (however one does that) can be a good thing, and in the UK those who receive public funds (BBC and others) are judged by quality and public service standards, as well as having to fulfil a UK
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Im glad crowdabout have implemented a fully embeddable version of their exciting features. I considered using them for my videoblogweek stuff, but I rushed the hosting/formats side of things, and personally I feel like crowdabouts sucess might be hampered by their choice of layout of their features visually. Id like a smaller version of thee player where the stuff that currently opens in windows at the side, is overlayed on top of the video. And a smaller timeline thats still just as functional because it can be zoomed in or out when theres a lot of conversation markers on a clip. But thats would take quite a bit of work to achieve all that Im sure. I am a huge fan of the concept, thats for sure, just not the GUI. Dont give me too much credit for talking about 'whole blog in a player' stuff for ages, its only been a month or so I guess. Anyway it does seem to be happening, but its unclear how much of the blog will make it into mainstream implementations of this sort of thing, so it would be nice if some vloggers who care about the blog part could help add momentum for this stuff. Im up for it, I enjoyed vlogging the other week and Im tired of listening to myself waffle and never do anything, . But right now when I go to get Flash I seem to be stuck ina bad moment before the new version of flash is released. Doh, can I get a trial of the previous version? Meanwhile on the radar of whats out there in terms of code people can download and install themselves, some fine efforts such as vPiP seem rather more closed when it comes to the flash player, which is fair enough, thats up to them. So Ive een seeign what else is out ther, this looks promising: http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Flash_Video_Player This wordpress plugin version of that is currently floating my boat, off to have a look at it in more detail: http://alexrabe.boelinger.com/?page_id=20 Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a lot of these players coming out now. If it were possible to create permalinks so that a link would take you to the site AND make the player play a certain episode, that'd be perfect. Crowdabout.us have recently released a similar large Show player - 2 weeks ago - and allowed anonymous commenting without logging into their site (which you had to do before). So you and your viewers can use their commenting and posting system, putting information and conversations at specific points along the timeline of your videos (with great RSS). I strongly advise you to check it out. It runs straight off your Blip RSS - they just pull in your flv files from Blip and then allow their commenting. At the moment, though, I want people to be able to link to specific episodes, not just watch the latest by default. I wrote to Crowdabout.us and asked them if they could produce another player, which allowed specific episodes to be played within individual permalinked blog posts. I hope they're going to do it. If they do, I will switch straightaway to using their players. The show player on the Home page and the individual players within the individual post pages. This kind of functionality is moving towards what Steve Elbows has talked about here for a long time and which I am always very excited about the possibility of - everything contained within one player - a multipurpose blog tool. The idea of making the videos themselves richer with easy custom hyperlinks and hotspots is also something I salivate over. I think people will start to build all this stuff in as the more advanced players get more popular. Wish it would all happen right now, though. Technologically, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't. Surely just a question of incentive, energy and inspiration. Maybe Elbows will come up with some blueprints - now he's overcome his Flashphobia ;) If I can help at all, even just as a sounding board, let me know. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 15 Apr 2007, at 19:45, joshpaul wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) On 4/15/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Sounds quite interesting, anybody tried it yet? Some details here: http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Cheers Steve Elbows I think this is probably one of the most important examples of where video is headed: the containment of all information
[videoblogging] Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!
It's not clear why this is an argument. The internet is a different topography than broadcast TV without the one to many limitation that creates relatively fixed gatekeepers. It is a node relationship closer to the telephone network as an antedecant. Anyone at any time can setup a videoblog on any subject. They can get as large an audience as are interested. Without fixed gatekeepers there is no need to regulate content that broadcast TV network programmers would not show. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agree. The original fear these sorts of regulations were designed to guard against, is that American companies would end up owning all the tv networks, and wouldnt bother making any local programming. Whereas if any media monopolies appear on the net, its less likely as a result of them strangulating the competition, but perhaps viewers choosing to go to that site. I think if they do decide to act, it will be mostly through trying to provide stuff to give their own domestic internet video companies a leg up. And at worst they could dictate what %age of content Canadian internet video companies host promote. And oops I used even more extreme emotive example of why regulation sometimes needed, in a previous post I mentioned kids up chimneys. I boradly agree withyou about the UK stuff, although I think that started to change long before the internet, getting a few more channels has opened the floodgates, and there have been some US shows like 'Lost' that have been very heavily promoted. Didnt the BBC show 24 for a few seasons? Yeah we sure do create out fair share of trash TV in the UK, US citizens are probably aware of this as I believe Benny Hill was on of our stronger exports to that part of the world! Some of my favorite TV shows have been American, but I disagree with you about British comedy, which hasnt been as hot in the last few years but sometimes creates interesting stuff ont he surreal side of the spectrum. No idea how well any of it exports, The Office was the last big export I know of but it was remade for the American audience, I dont want to see that version. Has Extras or things like The Mighty Boosh made it over the Atlantic? Id never like to guess what comedy translates to different cultures, was funny seeing Borat in action Stateside :) Id bet heavily that if regulation is kept at bay for years, then a trigger for it eventually ariving would be once net video enters a mature phase where it is possible that entrenched service monopolies could exist, and government will decide it has to act to 'give the consumer choice'. The EU kicking Microsofts ass could be the EU spanking youtube 10 years down the line, who knows. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Doctor P, I realise your comments were directed at Casey, but my own 2 cents: Your intentions are right in combating what you see as McMedia, but personally I find it hard to believe that geographically based programming quotas lead to better quality. i don't want to get into a whole Positive Discrimination discussion here. Oh, hell, I guess it's impossible not to. but i don't think you can really conflate all the issues that you've mentioned. makes for a nice emotive argument to say 'without regulation, schools would not be teaching xxx', but this is a different argument. i don't think many people think that all regulation is bad. it's part of our system of checks and balances to preserve our freedoms and rights and quality of life. but it *can* get out of control, and needs itself to be checked. different types of regulations come with their own areas of concern. there are specific problems - both practical and ethical - that arise from regulating broadcasting, information and the internet according to state boundaries. to regulate for quality (however one does that) can be a good thing, and in the UK those who receive public funds (BBC and others) are judged by quality and public service standards, as well as having to fulfil a UK production quota. one of the joys of internet video is that the production values and distribution methods mean that niches can be served in a way that they can't be in MSM. so regulating it with the intention of de- Americanizing and improving quality is not only unnecessary, it's potentially counterproductive, putting restrictions on niche producers. Finally, I don't know if I agree with your characterisation of most American content as namely entertainment for its own sake, is void of content even if the production is great. I've seen a lot of TV from around the world, including Canadian TV, and I think that the main bulk of TV *anywhere* fits your description. Including
[videoblogging] Re: Tilzy.tv Launch!
I was extremely pleased to see a guide that pays more than just lipservice to the idea that it really is a guide, a site that takes time to write reviews about the material. Ive long bitched about those who cut corners on such things, so three cheers to those who've done the job properly - hip hip hooray :) Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, eric gunnar rochow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they did a nice write up on gardenfork.tv on their site. most places require you to do it yourself. eric gunnar rochow http://gardenfork.tvgardenfork iTunes video podcast an internet video show - iTunes podcast about cooking, gardening, and other stuff. http://ericrochow.com web 2.0 blog http://www.choplogic.net company site [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im glad crowdabout have implemented a fully embeddable version of their exciting features. I considered using them for my videoblogweek stuff, but I rushed the hosting/formats side of things, and personally I feel like crowdabouts sucess might be hampered by their choice of layout of their features visually. Id like a smaller version of thee player where the stuff that currently opens in windows at the side, is overlayed on top of the video. And a smaller timeline thats still just as functional because it can be zoomed in or out when theres a lot of conversation markers on a clip. But thats would take quite a bit of work to achieve all that Im sure. I am a huge fan of the concept, thats for sure, just not the GUI. Dont give me too much credit for talking about 'whole blog in a player' stuff for ages, its only been a month or so I guess. Anyway it does seem to be happening, but its unclear how much of the blog will make it into mainstream implementations of this sort of thing, so it would be nice if some vloggers who care about the blog part could help add momentum for this stuff. Im up for it, I enjoyed vlogging the other week and Im tired of listening to myself waffle and never do anything, . But right now when I go to get Flash I seem to be stuck ina bad moment before the new version of flash is released. Doh, can I get a trial of the previous version? Meanwhile on the radar of whats out there in terms of code people can download and install themselves, some fine efforts such as vPiP seem rather more closed when it comes to the flash player, which is fair enough, thats up to them. I plan to release an open version of the included flash flv player in vPIP. Right now it's under development for features I'm writing for the cinegage site (not ready yet.) Once I can package the flash flv player so it has some commenting, cleaned up code and useable, I'll release that version under an open license. BTW, You can use any flash flv player in vPIP including the one by jeroenwijering. See http://vpip.org/home/playing-flash/ -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com So Ive een seeign what else is out ther, this looks promising: http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Flash_Video_Player This wordpress plugin version of that is currently floating my boat, off to have a look at it in more detail: http://alexrabe.boelinger.com/?page_id=20 Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: There are a lot of these players coming out now. If it were possible to create permalinks so that a link would take you to the site AND make the player play a certain episode, that'd be perfect. Crowdabout.us have recently released a similar large Show player - 2 weeks ago - and allowed anonymous commenting without logging into their site (which you had to do before). So you and your viewers can use their commenting and posting system, putting information and conversations at specific points along the timeline of your videos (with great RSS). I strongly advise you to check it out. It runs straight off your Blip RSS - they just pull in your flv files from Blip and then allow their commenting. At the moment, though, I want people to be able to link to specific episodes, not just watch the latest by default. I wrote to Crowdabout.us and asked them if they could produce another player, which allowed specific episodes to be played within individual permalinked blog posts. I hope they're going to do it. If they do, I will switch straightaway to using their players. The show player on the Home page and the individual players within the individual post pages. This kind of functionality is moving towards what Steve Elbows has talked about here for a long time and which I am always very excited about the possibility of - everything contained within one player - a multipurpose blog tool. The idea of making the videos themselves richer with easy custom hyperlinks and hotspots is also something I salivate over. I think people will start to build all this stuff in as the more advanced players get more popular. Wish it would all happen right now, though. Technologically, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't. Surely just a question of incentive, energy and inspiration. Maybe Elbows will come up with some blueprints - now he's overcome his Flashphobia ;) If I can help at all, even just as a sounding board, let me know. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 15 Apr 2007, at 19:45, joshpaul wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words,
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Thats brilliant news, cheers. vPIP is wonderful stuff, the flash player being closed isnt exactly a big issue, I just got curious about how everyone makes these things, and what efforts are out there that are happy for others to build on top of them. I wouldnt want to do anything that went against the spirit of what the creator intended when releasing their stuff. Could you explain if/what sort of use of SMIL your vPIP can do? Is it passing SMIL along to play in quicktime or something else? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I plan to release an open version of the included flash flv player in vPIP. Right now it's under development for features I'm writing for the cinegage site (not ready yet.) Once I can package the flash flv player so it has some commenting, cleaned up code and useable, I'll release that version under an open license. BTW, You can use any flash flv player in vPIP including the one by jeroenwijering. See http://vpip.org/home/playing-flash/ -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? _apple?
Ok, Let me take a shot at this. You can have any size you want. If you want to post postage size video that is fine. The following pertains to vlogs, web video and video on the Internet. Back in the day when more folks were on dial-up you had to balance many factors such as the dimensions, file size, video resolution and quality. I pulled out one of my old video books and these were the suggested sizes in the past: Delivery/Dimension/Frames Per Second/Audio E-mail 160x120 10fps Mono 22.05kHz Web video 240x180 12fps Stereo 22.05 kHz CD-ROM 320x240 15fps Stereo 44.1kHz If you were placing video on a web site circa 1999 the above would have been fine. But technology has moved forward. In 2005 the recommended/suggested/used (pick one)dimension of video on blogs was 320x240. Video placed on blogs/vlog at 320x240 best meet those needs of the viewers and content producers. It is still used. But it isn't the only way to do this. It is now 2007. Times have changed. You still have to balance the factors however more people are on high speed connections. There is also the introduction of digital camcorders that can record in different aspect ratios or recording dimensions. For example, 640x480 and 320x240 are in the 4:3 aspect ratio or more square like video. Same shape as an Analog TV screen. The newer digital camcorders have the ability to record 16:9 or more rectangular, like the way it looks like when you view DVD movies on analog TV sets. Your Apple TV screen is in the 16:9 aspect ratio. It is a matter of choice. Your choice on what will best serve the kind of video you are delivering. I'm really simplifying here folks so if the techies want to jump in feel free. I just want to provide a conceptual understanding. Over at Freevlog there are videos that might make it clear to you what is going on. Ryanne has her favorite compression settings http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/01/14/screencast-ryannes-favorite-compression-settings/ If you just want to output to the iPod format then view http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/03/19/41-compress-for-the-web-imovie/ If you are on Windows check out Michael's example. Even if you are a Mac person check it out. http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/03/19/4-compress-for-the-web-windows-movie-maker/ Keep asking questions, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am confused. Can someone read my setting's below in previous question osted? I am told apple tv is: 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec., and I am also told this: Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Can someone make this clear for me? Also see question below. Thanks. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook patsvideoblog@ wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/14/07, Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Bottom line - Large screen resolution doesn't amount to squat. It's VIDEO QUALITY. If the QUALITY of the video is crappy, then you can make the screen resolution WALLSIZED and it'd still be crappy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the tutorials still up on MeFeedia? Hope this helps :D What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky carter@: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thats brilliant news, cheers. vPIP is wonderful stuff, the flash player being closed isnt exactly a big issue, I just got curious about how everyone makes these things, and what efforts are out there that are happy for others to build on top of them. I wouldnt want to do anything that went against the spirit of what the creator intended when releasing their stuff. Could you explain if/what sort of use of SMIL your vPIP can do? Is it passing SMIL along to play in quicktime or something else? Yes, there's basic support for SMIL in quicktime (passing SMIL along should be the accurate description.) I haven't done work in SMIL myself, but setup support for SMIL in vPIP during debugging with Michael Sullivan having vPIP with SMIL on vlogdir.com. In the vPIP package the file, InitSMIL.mov, gives SMIL activation support. -- Enric Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric enric@ wrote: I plan to release an open version of the included flash flv player in vPIP. Right now it's under development for features I'm writing for the cinegage site (not ready yet.) Once I can package the flash flv player so it has some commenting, cleaned up code and useable, I'll release that version under an open license. BTW, You can use any flash flv player in vPIP including the one by jeroenwijering. See http://vpip.org/home/playing-flash/ -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Hey Steve, Thanks so much for giving us your perspective on what we're trying to do. I know we are on the same page in terms of where we are headed, but it's always helpful to get more input from users. And those considering using. Im glad crowdabout have implemented a fully embeddable version of their exciting features. I considered using them for my videoblogweek stuff, but I rushed the hosting/formats side of things, and personally I feel like crowdabouts sucess might be hampered by their choice of layout of their features visually. Id like a smaller version of thee player where the stuff that currently opens in windows at the side, is overlayed on top of the video. And a smaller timeline thats still just as functional because it can be zoomed in or out when theres a lot of conversation markers on a clip. But thats would take quite a bit of work to achieve all that Im sure. I am a huge fan of the concept, thats for sure, just not the GUI. This is an area where it's hard to get it right for everyone's use. I've been thinking about doing a contest, and letting everyone tell us what they want the player to look like/operate from an interface perspective. What do you think? Carter Harkins http://crowdabout.us
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? _apple?
this is very helpful. And I see we have choices because of our history. But in the apple tv column, something made sence. If you keep your file to one size fits all, it will help your rating's verses, splitting it up with different versions for every different user. So what version whould be truely optimal then, with this in mind? I am thinking qicktime, but i do not want to sway your thoughts, and size? Apple is confusing me on size? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, Let me take a shot at this. You can have any size you want. If you want to post postage size video that is fine. The following pertains to vlogs, web video and video on the Internet. Back in the day when more folks were on dial-up you had to balance many factors such as the dimensions, file size, video resolution and quality. I pulled out one of my old video books and these were the suggested sizes in the past: Delivery/Dimension/Frames Per Second/Audio E-mail 160x120 10fps Mono 22.05kHz Web video 240x180 12fps Stereo 22.05 kHz CD-ROM 320x240 15fps Stereo 44.1kHz If you were placing video on a web site circa 1999 the above would have been fine. But technology has moved forward. In 2005 the recommended/suggested/used (pick one)dimension of video on blogs was 320x240. Video placed on blogs/vlog at 320x240 best meet those needs of the viewers and content producers. It is still used. But it isn't the only way to do this. It is now 2007. Times have changed. You still have to balance the factors however more people are on high speed connections. There is also the introduction of digital camcorders that can record in different aspect ratios or recording dimensions. For example, 640x480 and 320x240 are in the 4:3 aspect ratio or more square like video. Same shape as an Analog TV screen. The newer digital camcorders have the ability to record 16:9 or more rectangular, like the way it looks like when you view DVD movies on analog TV sets. Your Apple TV screen is in the 16:9 aspect ratio. It is a matter of choice. Your choice on what will best serve the kind of video you are delivering. I'm really simplifying here folks so if the techies want to jump in feel free. I just want to provide a conceptual understanding. Over at Freevlog there are videos that might make it clear to you what is going on. Ryanne has her favorite compression settings http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/01/14/screencast-ryannes-favorite- compression-settings/ If you just want to output to the iPod format then view http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/03/19/41-compress-for-the-web-imovie/ If you are on Windows check out Michael's example. Even if you are a Mac person check it out. http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/03/19/4-compress-for-the-web-windows- movie-maker/ Keep asking questions, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: I am confused. Can someone read my setting's below in previous question osted? I am told apple tv is: 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec., and I am also told this: Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Can someone make this clear for me? Also see question below. Thanks. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook patsvideoblog@ wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/14/07, Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Bottom line - Large screen resolution doesn't amount to squat. It's VIDEO QUALITY. If the QUALITY of the video is crappy, then you can make the screen resolution WALLSIZED and it'd still be crappy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the tutorials still up on MeFeedia? Hope this helps :D What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky carter@: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS -
Re: [videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? _apple?
Wow, I thought this was a brilliant post, Gena. We should save cool things like this on the Wiki. http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/ Looking at it, there's not an immediately apparent space for How To stuff like this that I can see. There's resources: links to other sites, and there's links on the front page to Freevlog and Feevlog. I thought we should set up a section which can hold pages of info like this with titles like When making a podcast which format should I use (which itself links to Freevlog, but has other context opinion as well)? But I don't want to go messing with the wiki format that's been carefully laid out already, and make it all messy. Rupert On 15 Apr 2007, at 22:07, Gena wrote: Ok, Let me take a shot at this. You can have any size you want. If you want to post postage size video that is fine. The following pertains to vlogs, web video and video on the Internet. Back in the day when more folks were on dial-up you had to balance many factors such as the dimensions, file size, video resolution and quality. I pulled out one of my old video books and these were the suggested sizes in the past: Delivery/Dimension/Frames Per Second/Audio E-mail 160x120 10fps Mono 22.05kHz Web video 240x180 12fps Stereo 22.05 kHz CD-ROM 320x240 15fps Stereo 44.1kHz If you were placing video on a web site circa 1999 the above would have been fine. But technology has moved forward. In 2005 the recommended/suggested/used (pick one)dimension of video on blogs was 320x240. Video placed on blogs/vlog at 320x240 best meet those needs of the viewers and content producers. It is still used. But it isn't the only way to do this. It is now 2007. Times have changed. You still have to balance the factors however more people are on high speed connections. There is also the introduction of digital camcorders that can record in different aspect ratios or recording dimensions. For example, 640x480 and 320x240 are in the 4:3 aspect ratio or more square like video. Same shape as an Analog TV screen. The newer digital camcorders have the ability to record 16:9 or more rectangular, like the way it looks like when you view DVD movies on analog TV sets. Your Apple TV screen is in the 16:9 aspect ratio. It is a matter of choice. Your choice on what will best serve the kind of video you are delivering. I'm really simplifying here folks so if the techies want to jump in feel free. I just want to provide a conceptual understanding. Over at Freevlog there are videos that might make it clear to you what is going on. Ryanne has her favorite compression settings http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/01/14/screencast-ryannes- favorite-compression-settings/ If you just want to output to the iPod format then view http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/03/19/41-compress-for-the-web- imovie/ If you are on Windows check out Michael's example. Even if you are a Mac person check it out. http://www.freevlog.org/index.php/2007/03/19/4-compress-for-the-web- windows-movie-maker/ Keep asking questions, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am confused. Can someone read my setting's below in previous question osted? I am told apple tv is: 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec., and I am also told this: Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Can someone make this clear for me? Also see question below. Thanks. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook patsvideoblog@ wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/14/07, Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? Yes. The standard resolution for ANY videoblog should be 320x240. Anything else and you're really making it rather difficult for those of who watch via the PC. Bottom line - Large screen resolution doesn't amount to squat. It's VIDEO QUALITY. If the QUALITY of the video is crappy, then you can make the screen resolution WALLSIZED and it'd still be crappy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the tutorials still up on MeFeedia? Hope this helps :D What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky carter@: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
[videoblogging] Vloggercon 2007
What's the most recent plan for this? Last I heard here (just searched) it was going to be in Boston in the Summer, and not merged with BarCampUSA. Is that right? Still on? Any definite plans? Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Vloggercon 2007
I'd like to throw Washington DC in the ring as a possible venue for Vloggercon 2007. So far we've had NYC (The Culture/Finance/Media capital), Bay Area (The Tech capital), why not do vloggercon in the political capital? Imagine combining Vloggercon with visits to your lawmakers, interest groups, and such and vlogging those visits? The election cycle is going to add a bunch of energy to this town too, and we can feed off and into that energy. Washington DC is all about communication. Every major interest group in the country has a presence here. Maybe it makes sense for DIY media makers to have their voice heard here too. Maybe there are some issues that we hold in common, perhaps around intellectual property, net neutrality, shield laws, broadband access? If so, a collective voice beats a solitary voice. I'm sure there are lots of great places to hold vloggercon, I just want to make a case for DC. We have an expanding community of vloggers on the ground here who I'm sure would be happy to help out in the organizing and running of the event. I certainly would love to help out. OK, that's my pitch. What do people think? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the most recent plan for this? Last I heard here (just searched) it was going to be in Boston in the Summer, and not merged with BarCampUSA. Is that right? Still on? Any definite plans? Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] XBox360 to support mpeg4 h264
This news has been around a while now but I only just noticed. The Xbox site buried the announcement in a document that mostly focussed on Instant Messaging, but anyway the next update to XBox360 in early May will include: # Added H.264 video support: Up to 10 Mbps peak, Baseline, Main, and High profiles with 2 channel AAC LC. # Added MPEG-4 Part 2 video support: Up to 5 Mbps peak, Simple Profile with 2 channel AAC LC. Hoorah, all my recent waffle with Rupert about this stuff Windows Media Center is out of date, and it looks like I was wrong about how much microsoft would resist mp4 h264. They are probably also showing off because the XBox360 has plenty of power so it can handle high-spec stuff. But it uses quite a lot of electrical power so Im not too keen to promote it a the best solution, and its a tad loud. Very good picture quality in HD modes when playing HD-DVD's so I expect the mpeg4 h264 support to be equally good, I would guess its probably the same decoder thats already used if you have the HD-DVD addon for the 360, as both HD DVD and Blueray use h264. Anyway I dunno if the update will be available for UK Xboxers at the same time as the US, but when I get it I will report as to whether ipod apple tv formatted vlogs play back on it ok, Id certainly hope/expect so. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: Vloggercon 2007
Find a place and sponsors. ;) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to throw Washington DC in the ring as a possible venue for Vloggercon 2007. So far we've had NYC (The Culture/Finance/Media capital), Bay Area (The Tech capital), why not do vloggercon in the political capital? Imagine combining Vloggercon with visits to your lawmakers, interest groups, and such and vlogging those visits? The election cycle is going to add a bunch of energy to this town too, and we can feed off and into that energy. Washington DC is all about communication. Every major interest group in the country has a presence here. Maybe it makes sense for DIY media makers to have their voice heard here too. Maybe there are some issues that we hold in common, perhaps around intellectual property, net neutrality, shield laws, broadband access? If so, a collective voice beats a solitary voice. I'm sure there are lots of great places to hold vloggercon, I just want to make a case for DC. We have an expanding community of vloggers on the ground here who I'm sure would be happy to help out in the organizing and running of the event. I certainly would love to help out. OK, that's my pitch. What do people think? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: What's the most recent plan for this? Last I heard here (just searched) it was going to be in Boston in the Summer, and not merged with BarCampUSA. Is that right? Still on? Any definite plans? Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Vloggercon 2007
I'd like to second the motion made by my esteemed colleague Mr. Goldstein, the gentleman from DC. Do we have a quorom? Would Speaker of the House Andy Carvin care to weigh in on this? - Original Message From: Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:59:33 PM Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Vloggercon 2007 Find a place and sponsors. ;) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to throw Washington DC in the ring as a possible venue for Vloggercon 2007. So far we've had NYC (The Culture/Finance/Media capital), Bay Area (The Tech capital), why not do vloggercon in the political capital? Imagine combining Vloggercon with visits to your lawmakers, interest groups, and such and vlogging those visits? The election cycle is going to add a bunch of energy to this town too, and we can feed off and into that energy. Washington DC is all about communication. Every major interest group in the country has a presence here. Maybe it makes sense for DIY media makers to have their voice heard here too. Maybe there are some issues that we hold in common, perhaps around intellectual property, net neutrality, shield laws, broadband access? If so, a collective voice beats a solitary voice. I'm sure there are lots of great places to hold vloggercon, I just want to make a case for DC. We have an expanding community of vloggers on the ground here who I'm sure would be happy to help out in the organizing and running of the event. I certainly would love to help out. OK, that's my pitch. What do people think? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: What's the most recent plan for this? Last I heard here (just searched) it was going to be in Boston in the Summer, and not merged with BarCampUSA. Is that right? Still on? Any definite plans? Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Vloggercon 2007
if you plan it they will come i started to look into venues for boston, got some leads. just need some sponsors for booking deposets. On 4/15/07, Jim Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to second the motion made by my esteemed colleague Mr. Goldstein, the gentleman from DC. Do we have a quorom? Would Speaker of the House Andy Carvin care to weigh in on this? - Original Message From: Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] enric%40cirne.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:59:33 PM Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Vloggercon 2007 Find a place and sponsors. ;) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to throw Washington DC in the ring as a possible venue for Vloggercon 2007. So far we've had NYC (The Culture/Finance/Media capital), Bay Area (The Tech capital), why not do vloggercon in the political capital? Imagine combining Vloggercon with visits to your lawmakers, interest groups, and such and vlogging those visits? The election cycle is going to add a bunch of energy to this town too, and we can feed off and into that energy. Washington DC is all about communication. Every major interest group in the country has a presence here. Maybe it makes sense for DIY media makers to have their voice heard here too. Maybe there are some issues that we hold in common, perhaps around intellectual property, net neutrality, shield laws, broadband access? If so, a collective voice beats a solitary voice. I'm sure there are lots of great places to hold vloggercon, I just want to make a case for DC. We have an expanding community of vloggers on the ground here who I'm sure would be happy to help out in the organizing and running of the event. I certainly would love to help out. OK, that's my pitch. What do people think? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: What's the most recent plan for this? Last I heard here (just searched) it was going to be in Boston in the Summer, and not merged with BarCampUSA. Is that right? Still on? Any definite plans? Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Josh- Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) Can you ellaborate here? Because it sounds similar to some of my efforts. Thnx, sull On 4/15/07, joshpaul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
Right, and it was actually experimented with on vlogwall.com. In another recent thread I made mention of that too. The idea of the vPiP approach and SMIL/RSS usage seemed perfect, at least conceptually. This was last Summer mind you. So I made a gridwall of vPiP embeds of Video RSS Feeds (I just call them vodcasts). RSS feeds were transformed to SMIL. I had added pre and post clips to demonstrate what could be ads, cc licenses, branding bumps etc. So an entire video feed could technically be played back right within the embedded player and you could easily switch around to different feeds by clicking the other vPiP images/embeds. But, as mentioned before, Quicktime SMIL does tend to get overwhelmed and can suffer buffering delays or hangups. It worls better when every video is optimized small clips and the user doesnt jump around the playlist to much. So all in all, not ideal for the mass audience of net video, unfortunately. It's all about Flash when it comes to web based playback and playlisting of video. It just works more smoothly than anything else and now that Flash Video quality has improved so much in the past 12-18 months there is no reason to take full advantage of the platform right now. I also mentioned Jeroen's Playerhttp://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=Flash_Media_Player His is probably the basis several video services. YouTube started off using it and I have been using it since he released the first version long ago. It's good stuff and he has been actively developing and fixing it over the years. I recently talked to Jeroen again about supporting SMIL extensively. It's not a simple undertaking, but I think a SMIL smart Flash Wrapper is a big deal and I am pushing for him to consider expending the time on development of that (as well as myself and others). Of course, you can do alot by way of custom namespaces in RSS or XSPF to achieve all kinds of cool functionality. But the idea of utilising a standards compliant format and what I think is just an extremely cool XML spec... SMIL could make a comeback in the web. Its been around a long long time and nobody really ever talks about it. It is commonly used for mobile phone networks however. I just think it can be brought into the limelight and be used creatively again and now with Flash as the wrapper instead of Quicktime or Real. Sull On 4/15/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thats brilliant news, cheers. vPIP is wonderful stuff, the flash player being closed isnt exactly a big issue, I just got curious about how everyone makes these things, and what efforts are out there that are happy for others to build on top of them. I wouldnt want to do anything that went against the spirit of what the creator intended when releasing their stuff. Could you explain if/what sort of use of SMIL your vPIP can do? Is it passing SMIL along to play in quicktime or something else? Yes, there's basic support for SMIL in quicktime (passing SMIL along should be the accurate description.) I haven't done work in SMIL myself, but setup support for SMIL in vPIP during debugging with Michael Sullivan having vPIP with SMIL on vlogdir.com. In the vPIP package the file, InitSMIL.mov, gives SMIL activation support. -- Enric Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Enric enric@ wrote: I plan to release an open version of the included flash flv player in vPIP. Right now it's under development for features I'm writing for the cinegage site (not ready yet.) Once I can package the flash flv player so it has some commenting, cleaned up code and useable, I'll release that version under an open license. BTW, You can use any flash flv player in vPIP including the one by jeroenwijering. See http://vpip.org/home/playing-flash/ -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player
I'm not that familiar with your efforts. Is there somewhere online I can view them? I'm essentially thinking using key/value pairs within metadata hooks provided by QT, Flash, et al. Basically, come up with some type of schema we can expect to extract, such as licensing restrictions, copyright owner, originating host (i.e. blip.tv, youtube.com, ...) etc. I think part of the problem is that the hooks are there, but nobody is embedding the information. So, nobody's looking for it. On 4/15/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh- Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) Can you ellaborate here? Because it sounds similar to some of my efforts. Thnx, sull On 4/15/07, joshpaul [EMAIL PROTECTED]lists%2Byahoo%40joshpaul.com wrote: Yes, metadata is key. There are already hooks available, it just seems that the vast majority of people aren't using them. In other words, the major video containers provide methods to embed metadata, so that it travels with the file itself. Maybe this is something the video vertigo team would be willing to tackle? ( i.e. key/value pairs) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- joshpaul o: 818-237-5200 c: 818-667-0900 w: joshpaul.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
