Re: [videoblogging] MP4/MOV Converter To FLV
really? interesting. for mac, i thought all you needed was Perian? http://perian.org/ @sull On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Michael Verdi michaelve...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.auadrian.miles%40rmit.edu.au wrote: doesn't QT pro transcode to flv? It only does when you have the Flash Video Encoder (that comes with Flash) installed on your system. - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] MP4/MOV Converter To FLV
you could try this, which i use on occasion: http://www.squared5.com/ also use visualhub, quicktime and adobe media encoder. sull On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM, darbycoin scott.st...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all - so I'm on a mac. Check. And I've got this ONE video that everytime I upload it to Blip (it's a slideshow with audio voice over for a not for profit about organic lawncare) it won't convert it to Flash because there's apparently way to much white in some of the stills, and/or flashes of white between the stills that's making it kick it out of the converter and hence fails to convert to FLV all together. So I've been hunting for a good converter - and while I have used FFMPEG in the past - when I upload the video I converted with it - no matter what I do the Flash Video doesn't resize with the player. It's a small box within the box. So question 1: is there a setting I'm missing in FFMPEG so that the video resizes with the player. And/or 2: Is there another FLV encoder out there for mac that might suit my needs? Thanks all! Cheers. Scott Stead www.scottstead.com www.documentaryclub.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] MP4/MOV Converter To FLV
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.com wrote: really? interesting. for mac, i thought all you needed was Perian? http://perian.org/ @sull Oh maybe you are right. I thought that just let you watch flv files in qt. I have them both installed so I guess I'm not sure what does what. - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com
[videoblogging] Re: MP4/MOV Converter To FLV - VIDEO ALL WHITE
Ok so I'm a knuckle head - just figured out that I have Flash + Quicktime Pro on my laptop (I was working on my old PowerPC tower and neglected that I don't have adobe suite on this thing). So I converted the video - and sure enough - it made the video ALL WHITE. I converted the .mov to MP4, i tried reencoding and still ALL WHITE VIDEO. All I can think of to do now is use Snaps X to completely recap the thing so the stream is out of the loop...any ideas why Flash would make the video all white? Cheers. Scott Stead www.scottstead.com www.documentaryclub.org
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
It's still early in the game. They're rolling out new revenue models all the time. This one seems to be doing well: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/09/youtube-launches-click-to-buy-in-eight-new-countries Credit Suisse analysts may have to revisit their estimate that YouTube will lose $470 million this year. The site has rolled out its Click-to-Buy program - which is intended to result in quite a lot of revenue-sharing - in eight new countries. Click-to-Buy's best success storyhttp://mashable.com/2009/01/22/youtube-boost-sales/ so far has probably been that of Monty Python. After the comedy troupe launched a YouTube channel with links to Amazon, sales of one DVD boxed set soared by about 23,000 percent. Not bad for content that's a couple of decades old, right? On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wli...@weatherlight.comwrote: ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing money badly. In reality, it's because GM loses $1 per car they sell because they do everything wrong. Is it valid to ask if cars as we know them will be viable? No. It's not that cars aren't viable. It's that GM is doing it wrong. Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. This could have everything to do with a casual numbers game not showing the real details. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. Imagination isn't reality, though, and presupposition gets you nowhere. If YouTube isn't doing this sufficiently, then they're losing money. But the TV ad industry in the US alone is worth $80 billion, 60% of total advertising spend. Superbowl ads this year earned NBC over $200m - that alone is perhaps between 2 and 4 times as much as Google's making all year from YouTube video ads. Of course, it's distorting to use the SuperBowl in a good comparison here, because it's well known that the SuperBowl is basically tulip season for advertisers. People spend on those ads because they exist. It's similar to how city after city hosts an Olympic Games but never profits on the venture. That said, I understand where you're trying to go with this, but you keep treating this as a problem with online video when, in fact, it's a problem with YouTube. Your assumption is that, if YouTube can't do it, nobody can. That itself only makes sense if you can prove that the only people capable of doing it are YouTube and what supporting engineers Google gives them. Is
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Its interesting. Im not convinced that social networking sites like facebook or phenomenon such as twitter know how to make money, let alone video providers with their higher bandwidth costs. There were a flurry of articles in recent weeks suggesting that Youtube is trying to get away from user generated content, and do more deals with the likes of Disney. They would still have user generated content, as a loss-leader that brings eyeballs to the site, but would be using the premium stuff to try to generate the big revenues. I half expected some concern about this from this group, especially as the already limited ability of individuals to promote themselves effectively via youtube friends could be further eroded. Ive little idea where its all going, I certainly worry about sustainability issues, bandwidth/hosting energy costs, lack of revenue, and Ive always been very skeptical of the silly numbers that used to get bandied around regarding potential advertising revenues. How have text bloggers and blog networks been faring in recent years? And podcasts for that matter. Ive forgotten which visionaries used to talk big about the longtail in years gone by, I wonder what they think now, can anybody point me in the right direction? I think I used to wonder whether this whole process would lead to the death of the ability to make silly money from media, even going as far as to think that most people will make stuff for the love of it in future, and do some other work to pay the bills etc. On the other hand I never thought that online music would utterly destroy the music industry, its changed it somewhat and maybe changed their revenues a bit, but they seem to have worked out how to use it for promotion and distribution without totally strangling themselves. The economies of scale are in a mess, unclear whether the wider economic woes of our age will mean we never get to see the 'natural conclusion' to this dramatic change, before the whole model of capital and borrowing against the future is wiped out by the realisation that we've borrowed against a future that will never exist. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rup...@... wrote: That's me - broad brush man. Jack of all trades, master of none. I take your point, that it's horses for courses, but I still don't understand the long term future of advertising for on-demand video. It's just not happening on anything like the scale of traditional advertising, or even other online advertising. Surely it's different from text - not least in advertisers' ability to keep track of what content they're being connected to and the costs of providing it? And I don't understand ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. But the TV ad industry in the US alone is worth $80 billion, 60% of total advertising spend. Superbowl ads this year earned NBC over $200m - that alone is perhaps between 2 and 4 times as much as Google's making all year from YouTube video ads. Is online video really that unattractive to advertisers? How is that going to change? It seems to me that at the moment, short on-demand online videos are more attractive to the viewers than the advertisers, and therefore that viewers are likely to pay more for them directly than advertisers would. At the moment, they don't have to make the choice, because 40% of the market is being subsidized by Google at a cost of $500m. No other business could sustain
[videoblogging] Re: pc laptop
I cant see any particular reason why it would have a problem with video editing, seems like a fairly beefy spec. If you get Windows 7 when it comes out, it will feel like even more of a powerhouse as Vista is a tad bloated. And if you are editing high definition then maybe you'd want a screen with higher resolution, but you can always plug in an external screen if this becomes an issue for you. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roshani Kothari roshanikoth...@... wrote: Hello everyone, After much searching, I am thinking about getting this laptop. http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-Satellite-U405-S2915-13-3-Inch-Laptop/dp/B001NEJO2M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=pcqid=1239212492sr=1-1 http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/toshiba-satellite-u405-s2915/4505-3121_7-33497662.html?tag=mncol;lst Do you think it will be able to handle video editing? Any reason I shouldn't get it? Thank you. Roshani [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Yeah, you make a good case. I can't really argue back any more than just to say that I was - probably naively - basing my impressions on an assumption that Google knows what it's doing as far as advertising is concerned, being impressed by their $20+bn/yr ad revenues. I'd never really considered that Google would be GM-like in their handling of an important property like YouTube: handling it incompetently, not understanding the potential online video advertising market, not seeing the real opportunities, not giving YouTube the resources they need. I had assumed that they're trying their absolute hardest not to lose half a billion dollars and that they haven't been able to make it work yet. But perhaps you're right and they are indeed shackled by a GM-like existing situation with YouTube and don't know how to fix it. And you're also right that I hadn't considered that YouTube would just end because it doesn't work - as the third most popular website, and something that Google paid $1.7bn for, I didn't see that coming about any time soon. But with these kind of losses, maybe it will. Unless they can find another way to fund all that bandwidth from those tiny amounts of viewers that advertisers aren't interested in - bandwidth that they're already paying well below market rate for. I wasn't talking about Micropayment systems for direct payment, though - I was talking about the kind of dollar payments that people pay for media in places like the iTunes store. And I see that you're saying it's just a problem with YouTube, not with online video, and that some of the best and most ready-to- monetize content isn't on YouTube. I don't know what that content is, and I'd assumed that the vast majority of the most monetizable commercial online video is published on YouTube as well as wherever else it might go, just to capture the audiences. So I didn't really understand the difference between the most monetizable online video and YouTube. But you're probably right, there are probably lots of other options that I hadn't considered which mean that advertising in online video will suddenly become very successful and ubiquitous and pay per view won't become the dominant model for funding it all as I'd suggested. And maybe, to follow on from Jay's post about Time Warner as ISP and content creator, there are all sorts of other ways that we will end up paying for all this data that we've hitherto thought of as free. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 8-Apr-09, at 6:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wrote: ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
I had assumed that they're trying their absolute hardest not to lose half a billion dollars and that they haven't been able to make it work yet. But perhaps you're right and they are indeed shackled by a GM-like existing situation with YouTube and don't know how to fix it. First off, having worked at Google, I know for a fact they're willing to let a project bleed a little while they figure out what to do. It can be as simple as their current model was an attempt that didn't work. I'm not trying to call them GM so much as to just say that Google is not the end all of online video. And you're also right that I hadn't considered that YouTube would just end because it doesn't work - as the third most popular website, and something that Google paid $1.7bn for, I didn't see that coming about any time soon. But with these kind of losses, maybe it will. Unless they can find another way to fund all that bandwidth from those tiny amounts of viewers that advertisers aren't interested in - bandwidth that they're already paying well below market rate for. Well, I definitely think that Google would seriously lose face if they didn't find a way to keep YouTube. They will not do that unless they have to. However, online video exists beyond YouTube and I'd argue it's the stuff beyond YouTube that's got the best chance at making real money. Others on here have noted some very simple ideas like a YouTube Business site...nobody is doing this, and they need to. I wasn't talking about Micropayment systems for direct payment, though - I was talking about the kind of dollar payments that people pay for media in places like the iTunes store. Yes, but as Clay Shirky points out, iTunes doesn't work because it competes in the marketplace. It succeeds because it stays separate from a free market in online media. Furthermore, the popularity of online video right now is in its ability to be linked, embedded, and discussed. If we were to micropay for videos, then I'd be paying money for following links. I'll stop following them or I'll join groups to circumvent that wall. This already happened with online text for the New York Times. That model went over poorly for them, and all you had to do was sign up for a lousy account. I don't know what that content is, and I'd assumed that the vast majority of the most monetizable commercial online video is published on YouTube as well as wherever else it might go, just to capture the audiences. So I didn't really understand the difference between the most monetizable online video and YouTube. IMHO, The Escapist (http://www.escapistmag.com) has one of the best online video systems going. Zero Punctuation and Unskippable are hits, they have plenty of internal ads which likely pay somewhat well, and they drive their own merchandise sales. But you're probably right, there are probably lots of other options that I hadn't considered which mean that advertising in online video will suddenly become very successful and ubiquitous and pay per view won't become the dominant model for funding it all as I'd suggested. It's worth remembering that advertising works in TV and print because television shows and popular publications are *co-created* with the advertising. That is, the content is designed to work well with advertisers, and the advertisements are tuned to work well with the content. You just can't do this in the YouTube model. At a place like The Escapist (or even a person's non-YouTube video blog), you can. -- Rhett http://www.weatherlight.com
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Great. But if you look at the YouTube videos, the links are in the info panel, not in banners or overlays, so I don't know whether it's really a proper display of the effectiveness of annoying Click To Buy text overlays popping up over someone's home video containing a Britney Spears song. Also, I love 'sales of one DVD box set soared by 23,000 percent'. Classic marketing use of statistics to blur meaning, being (dead) parroted by Mashable from YouTube's blog. Especially with no reference to how many sold before, or over what period this was. If they sold one copy per week of the box set before the channel launched, it'd mean the next week they sold 230. If they sold 100 a day before the channel, it'd mean they sold 230,000 copies the next day. Big difference. On 9-Apr-09, at 9:22 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: It's still early in the game. They're rolling out new revenue models all the time. This one seems to be doing well: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/09/youtube-launches-click-to-buy-in-eight-new-countries Credit Suisse analysts may have to revisit their estimate that YouTube will lose $470 million this year. The site has rolled out its Click-to-Buy program - which is intended to result in quite a lot of revenue- sharing - in eight new countries. Click-to-Buy's best success storyhttp://mashable.com/2009/01/22/youtube-boost-sales/ so far has probably been that of Monty Python. After the comedy troupe launched a YouTube channel with links to Amazon, sales of one DVD boxed set soared by about 23,000 percent. Not bad for content that's a couple of decades old, right? On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wli...@weatherlight.comwrote: ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing money badly. In reality, it's because GM loses $1 per car they sell because they do everything wrong. Is it valid to ask if cars as we know them will be viable? No. It's not that cars aren't viable. It's that GM is doing it wrong. Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. This could have everything to do with a casual numbers game not showing the real details. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. Imagination isn't reality, though, and presupposition gets you nowhere. If YouTube isn't doing this
[videoblogging] Can you put a swf file in a blog so you can have a submit button?
Can you place a swf file in a blog so you can have a data entry and submit button? How is this dine. Urig
[videoblogging] Re: Best Video Editing Software For H.264?
I was looking for something else and I found http://www.iorgsoft.com/Mod-Converter that has the ability to import MKV and possibly to export in that format as well. I've never used the program, but I do have a camcorder that records in the .mod format. It took a while to work out the conversion/editing problem. It is only $29 and seems to come in a PC and Mac version. Hope this helps, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Davis Freeberg da...@... wrote: The few video editing software programs I've used have been pretty basic and disappointing. Lots of bugs, limitations and crashing. I'd like to upgrade to something that lets me input h.264 files, edit them there and then export into H.264/MKV. Was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the programs I should be looking at? I'm a PC user, so that leaves out Apple. I'd like to find out which one is the best as well as the best one that doesn't cost an arm or a leg.
