[videoblogging] Re: Thoughts on Google and Video
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pageflex2001 innom...@... wrote: As time goes by, more and more I realize that coming up with the idea first isn't as important as executing it when the time is right. They say being one step ahead of the curve you are a genius, being two steps ahead you are a martyr
[videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Great discussion. I've been asked to present at the Orange County Multimedia Web Video SIG next week on this subject and this post has been an invaluable resource. Thanks to everyone for sharing links and opinions. Its interesting and exciting to see progress made with these tools, but I still dont quite get the whole open source movement. Why is it such a big deal, especially in regards to web video? Or any content for that matter? In my opinion H264 is so great (and it is) because some very smart people were paid to develop the algorithms. If VP8 is only kinda sorta as good as the very worst part of H264, where is the incentive for it to be improved? Or any open source software for that matter? I'm happy to pay a fee for commercial software, or a license therein as part of any fee. My experiments with open source software I have tried lead me to the conclusion its mostly crap. I use photoshop, for example, and not GIMP because GIMP is crap. It is. I'll happily pay a huge corporation for the right to use their software because it works. Well. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong open source tree here, so forgive me and correct me. Regarding Flash, and rich user interface. Why is it cool if HTML5 or WebM can create a rich UI with full screen video, or the browser as a canvas for video to play on? Flash has done that for years. My complaints about Flash on the web are not political, but practical. Flash causes more browser crashes than anything else. I'd be happy to use Flash for web video, if it worked. So i guess, if an open source solution arises that can solve that issue I'm for it. But H264 has already got that solved so HTML5 has Flash beat, and the game is won. I looked over these pages and its a great primer http://www.apple.com/html5/ but I'm not sure where the open source codecs fit in to the equation, why it would be better. Lets face it, without Flash, there would be no web video as we know it today. There would be no Vimeo, or Blip. There would be no videoblogging community as large and healthy as it is. Frequently I hear many of the top posters on this group bagging on Flash. Sounds like biting the hand that feeds is all. I just wonder why... All that grumbling said, WebM looks like a good move in the right direction. And further proof web video is now, it is the future, it is here to stay, it is best platform for distributing content, everything we've all been saying for years. I'm sure Google will put all their might behind it and it will improve in the months and years to come. As the X264 blogger wrote, it is all part of the larger Google web video advertising platform. Which makes me wonder which huge corporation is really the enemy of truth and choice, but thats a whole other discussion :) Erm, Navigaya...I only have so much negativity I can share in one day so i'll avoid comment on this for now :P Cheers, i look forward the continuation of this discussion and rebuttals and opinions -adam --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi mich...@... wrote: Oh and I forgot to post the link to the WebM discussion group: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webm-discuss/topics On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Michael Verdi mich...@... wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:15 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: Meanwhile apparently someone that knows a bit about the tech of video codecs had an initial look at VP8 and was quite concerned about some similarities in certain functions to h.264. This leaves the door open for patent woes for WebM, although it is far too early to tell if that will become an issue at some point. At the very least we should not get too complacent about WebM, its future is not completely assured, but hopefully it will all work out ok. What I've heard from codec people is that that stuff is exactly what NOT to be worried about. The codec patents are really specific and the stuff in VP8 that's like H.264 is exactly where they did something different to avoid infringing their patent. Remember that most of the anti-WebM stuff so far is from people heavily invested (either in $ or time) in H.264. My suspicion is that Google didn't spend $120 million willy nilly. And remember, their plan is that they're going to use it for YouTube so they can save money. Oh and companies are working on hardware support. FWIW, if you didn't know, I now work for Mozilla and have been a supporter of open codecs for while now so of course I'm biased. I'd just caution you to take it all with a grain of salt. WebM was just announced 2 days ago. Give it time. The best way to know the future is to invent it. So if you'd like to WebM succeed, vote with attention. Start playing with stuff and talk to the people making it. You can grab a WebM capable beta of Firefox here: http://nightly.mozilla.org/webm/ Miro just put out there super easy video converter with webm support:
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM, adammerc...@att.net adammerc...@att.net wrote: Lets face it, without Flash, there would be no web video as we know it today. There would be no Vimeo, or Blip. and no Youtube! Only 2 billion or so videos served a day. Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Have you read about the BBC Domesday Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project)?, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Dark_Age or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_obsolescence the open source community are only one who can keep project going for decades eg: unix started in 1969 and is still going today Corporations fold or merge ever 5 years tom_a_sparks --- On Mon, 7/6/10, adammerc...@att.net adammerc...@att.net wrote: From: adammerc...@att.net adammerc...@att.net Subject: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, 7 June, 2010, 5:31 PM Great discussion. I've been asked to present at the Orange County Multimedia Web Video SIG next week on this subject and this post has been an invaluable resource. Thanks to everyone for sharing links and opinions. Its interesting and exciting to see progress made with these tools, but I still dont quite get the whole open source movement. Why is it such a big deal, especially in regards to web video? Or any content for that matter? In my opinion H264 is so great (and it is) because some very smart people were paid to develop the algorithms. If VP8 is only kinda sorta as good as the very worst part of H264, where is the incentive for it to be improved? Or any open source software for that matter? I'm happy to pay a fee for commercial software, or a license therein as part of any fee. My experiments with open source software I have tried lead me to the conclusion its mostly crap. I use photoshop, for example, and not GIMP because GIMP is crap. It is. I'll happily pay a huge corporation for the right to use their software because it works. Well. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong open source tree here, so forgive me and correct me. Regarding Flash, and rich user interface. Why is it cool if HTML5 or WebM can create a rich UI with full screen video, or the browser as a canvas for video to play on? Flash has done that for years. My complaints about Flash on the web are not political, but practical. Flash causes more browser crashes than anything else. I'd be happy to use Flash for web video, if it worked. So i guess, if an open source solution arises that can solve that issue I'm for it. But H264 has already got that solved so HTML5 has Flash beat, and the game is won. I looked over these pages and its a great primer http://www.apple.com/html5/ but I'm not sure where the open source codecs fit in to the equation, why it would be better. Lets face it, without Flash, there would be no web video as we know it today. There would be no Vimeo, or Blip. There would be no videoblogging community as large and healthy as it is. Frequently I hear many of the top posters on this group bagging on Flash. Sounds like biting the hand that feeds is all. I just wonder why... All that grumbling said, WebM looks like a good move in the right direction. And further proof web video is now, it is the future, it is here to stay, it is best platform for distributing content, everything we've all been saying for years. I'm sure Google will put all their might behind it and it will improve in the months and years to come. As the X264 blogger wrote, it is all part of the larger Google web video advertising platform. Which makes me wonder which huge corporation is really the enemy of truth and choice, but thats a whole other discussion :) Erm, Navigaya...I only have so much negativity I can share in one day so i'll avoid comment on this for now :P Cheers, i look forward the continuation of this discussion and rebuttals and opinions -adam --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi mich...@... wrote: Oh and I forgot to post the link to the WebM discussion group: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webm-discuss/topics On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Michael Verdi mich...@... wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:15 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: Meanwhile apparently someone that knows a bit about the tech of video codecs had an initial look at VP8 and was quite concerned about some similarities in certain functions to h.264. This leaves the door open for patent woes for WebM, although it is far too early to tell if that will become an issue at some point. At the very least we should not get too complacent about WebM, its future is not completely assured, but hopefully it will all work out ok. What I've heard from codec people is that that stuff is exactly what NOT to be worried about. The codec patents are really specific and the stuff in VP8 that's like H.264 is exactly where they did something different to avoid infringing their patent. Remember that most of the anti-WebM stuff so far is from people heavily invested (either in $ or time) in H.264. My suspicion is that Google didn't spend $120 million willy nilly. And remember, their plan is that
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
hi all I've kept out of this, but comments below, sorry Tom, Linux is open source (it was written, quite recently in the history of unix, because there was *no* open source unix), but unix is not open source, never has been. Proprietary all the way as far as I know: http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html Funnily enough unix had its own standards argument which was why they introduced Open Standards. This did not mean free or non commercial. it meant agreed standards, much like H.264 and MPEG4. I will keep out of this now, 90% of what is getting written is either wrong in fact, bordering on tabloid, or just hyperbole (much like this sentence really). Regarding Doomsday. 1. There are hundreds of similar examples (got any beta domestic video tapes under your bed?). 2. The issue was they picked a technology that was not the future and was minor. 3. there are thousands of open source projects that have died, and will die, those that survive do so because they reach a critical size, ie they are minor and will go nowhere. 4. Same argument for the Doomsday project, if they had got the technology right, then it would have continued/survived (just as yes, I can still just manage to get my domestic beta video tapes onto other media). The issue for survivability is uptake. In 1993 on the web most in media did not see it as having a viable commercial future, if it remained only for hobbyists/geeks/tech types they would have been right. Mosaic was invented, (http existed well before Mosaic, we used Lynx to view webpages) and the web very quickly became compelling. If mosaic - a graphical browser - had not come along, well, who knows but the internet could have remained a small, busy, vocal place for academics and geeks. On 7 June 2010 17:56, Tom Sparks tom_a_spa...@yahoo.com.au wrote: the open source community are only one who can keep project going for decades eg: unix started in 1969 and is still going today cheers Adrian Miles http://vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] files
biggest mistake is to set manual keyframes. make them automatic (also known as natural), will produce better compression results and generally smaller file sizes... an appropriate closing Adrian Miles School of Media and Communication Program Director B.Comm Honours vogmae.net.au On 7 June 2010 14:44, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote: Thanx for taking the time to explain that Adrian, I guess I'll select 'quick start' when I convert. I use Quick Time Pro to convert from iMovie to a QT movie which I then upload to YouTube, blip and a few others. My files have been very large, even after following the advice of a very popular vid-blogger. I don't like the resolution that he apparently finds acceptable. But thru trial error just the other day, I discovered a combo of selections that reduced my file size to about 1/3 size with ok acceptable rez. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
--- On Mon, 7/6/10, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au wrote: From: Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, 7 June, 2010, 9:13 PM hi all I've kept out of this, but comments below, sorry Tom, Linux is open source (it was written, quite recently in the history of unix, because there was *no* open source unix), but unix is not open source, never has been. Proprietary all the way as far as I know:no it mostly shared source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg the open source/Hacker community born in 1960 and it may not have if unix was around The issue for survivability is uptake. In 1993 on the web most in media did not see it as having a viable commercial future, if it remained only for hobbyists/geeks/tech types they would have been right. Mosaic was invented, (http existed well before Mosaic, we used Lynx to view webpages) and the web very quickly became compelling. If mosaic - a graphical browser - had not come along, well, who knows but the internet could have remained a small, busy, vocal place for academics and geeks. the Arpanet, could have been a very small place but then again we could be using FideoNet we are getting off topic On 7 June 2010 17:56, Tom Sparks tom_a_spa...@yahoo.com.au wrote: the open source community are only one who can keep project going for decades eg: unix started in 1969 and is still going today cheers Adrian Miles http://vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Adam M: Its interesting and exciting to see progress made with these tools, but I still dont quite get the whole open source movement. Why is it such a big deal, especially in regards to web video? Or any content for that matter? Adam/All: I am in the same boat; with similar sentiment. Though perhaps more because I don't understand the core mechanisms of how the technical details, affect my efforts (potentially or actually) -- hence, bottom-line. But then I've mostly found heavy detail on the techno side distracting, in that I haven't felt every why and wherefore is necessary for grasping functionality. In order to use a microwave oven (a tool), for example, I needn't know every detail of HOW radiant heat is generated; only that pressing button X in combination with Z, then start, produces a desired result. And if I discover a need to nuke with greater efficiency, then wattage might be an ancillary consideration. Granted this may be a simplistic view, but until those in-the-know espalne to the technically challenged (like me) why we should care about the technominutia? I am more of a mind to believe whatever future technology will work itself out, to the extent of mass simplification for Neanderthals like me. ...Click here; this happens, equaling desired result. :D Perhaps I'm mistaken in not caring about the detail, and am open for correction. Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Thoughts on Google and Video
Very good! On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:31 AM, adammerc...@att.net adammerc...@att.net wrote: They say being one step ahead of the curve you are a genius, being two steps ahead you are a martyr -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---
[videoblogging] Re: What happened to vloggercon site?
Thats still a great lineup. I would like to attend a few of those sessions today (like not literally today, you know, currently, these days...) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: It's working now (thanks Ryanne!) - http://www.vloggercon.com I was just checking out what we were all talking about in 2006: Schedule: http://www.vloggercon.com/?page_id=3 Video Archive: http://www.vloggercon.com/?page_id=208 And even farther back in 2005 when very few people even knew what videoblogging was: http://vloggercon.blogspot.com/2005/02/vloggercon-05-conference-sessions.html Very cool to see how many of these people have evolved in their work. Jay
[videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Just as a side note - and me being the documentary guy in the group - if you want to know more about the Unix/Linux open source OS history - there'a a great 2001 doc called Revolution OS - which you can conveniently watch in entirety online here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409# or streaming on Netflix (I just watched it and the doc Macheads the other day because I was geekin' out a bit). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: files
Flattening, in the QuickTime context, means baking all the data into one files, as opposed to referencing outside files. QuickTime has the ability to create very small reference movies, basically containers for external content - audio, video, sprite, text - packaged yp into one file. When saving out of QTPro or FinalCut you have the option to save a reference movie, or a flattened movie. reference movies out of FCP are great as it allows you save a final master without making a very large file. FCP is referencing your captured footage and render files when saving out a reference movie, otherwise you would essentially be duplicating what is already on your hard drive, a waste of space. But the problem is if those source files go missing, the unbaked reference file is useless. Also, QuickTime is able to update the internal links in the reference file so if you move the external files to a different location the reference file will still play correctly. THis has caught me out on occasion, thinking once the files moved to the trash the ref movie still played everything was okay. But once the trash was emptied, the ref movie failed. I wish there was some kind of visual indicator. hope that helps -adam --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@... wrote: Hi, Can someone tell me the meaning of: Flattened movie or video file? I'm looking into different ways to compress for the web from iMovie and occasionally I see this term. Thanx Tom Dolan tomjdolan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Regarding flash: It certainly got round the nightmares with OS differences, install this plugin, etc etc, and played a massive role in videoblogging and other video on the web going mainstream in a big way. Its kinda hard to imagine vlogging taking off to the extent it did without flash, but in the early years of this group this was not at all obvious. This is partly because RSS podcasting was a large part of the early videoblogging wave, and there was quite a sense that people would be aggregating video more than watching it in their browser. Up till recently the reasons to dislike flash and long for it to be displaced were hugely outweighed by the compatibility issues it overcame in browsers. This is slowly changing for a few different reasons but not to the extent that flash is suddenly 'the bad guy'. Main gripes about flash: Performance and stability issues. Performance much better on the desktop/laptop with video now, but on mobile devices it looks like its going to suck for some time to come. Stability issues remain, although they get a tad overstated sometimes. Development: Better if developers dont have to shell out a fair amount of cash for the tools to develop stuff in flash. Better if the tech is based on standards that are well beyond the control of one company. Cross-platform compatibility: Apple almost single-handedly created this issue by refusing to support flash on iphone ipad. Easy to work round if the underlying video is already h.264, and for all the hate that Apple get over this issue, poor Flash performance in next Android may well show the practical reasons Apple took this stance. The whole debate about opensource and its merits gets a bit messed up by being confused with open standards. And there is confusion over difference between open standards and standards that may have licensing terms that bite us on the bum one day. Some examples of these various phenomenon: Developer or advanced user wants to modify a web video player, either a little or a lot, beyond the config options that are provided. But its written in Flash, they may not be able to see the underlying code, and if they can then they probably need to spend money on tools to author flash. If the player was made using HTML5 they would be able to see the source and they would have greater choice of tools to modify it. Some big advantages here potentially but wont be apparent to users who arent going to mess around under the bonnet themselves, that is until developers do something great that they can use, that wouldnt otherwise have happened. Developers and users want a really smooth UI experience and less battery drain on their mobile device. Assuming their mobiles OS has been written to make good use of hardware acceleration, HTML5 or native apps with H.264 can take advantage of this and deliver a better experience than flash. This may change in future, eg there could be WebM hardware decoding one day, Andriod can get more polished etc. Developers of Firefox browser cant take advantage of H.264 using HTML5 video tags because the nature of the licensing terms for H.264 is incompatible with the way they make distribute their browser, eg for a start there is a cost involved that they cannot absorb. So H.264 becomes the bad guy and WebM the great hope. Large media company, large website owner, producers of certain kinds of content want to avoid H.264 licensing costs, so WebM starts to look attractive. Joe Vlogger or Joe public may like the sound of WebM either because they are worried about being stung for fees from the h.264 patent holders at some point in the future, or they object to some aspect of h.264 patents on an ideological basis, or because they want a popular browser like Firefox to be ok, or they like the sound of completely open and free, and/or they dont want HTML5 web standards in general to clash with the murky world of patents. The problem with H.264 certainly isnt whether it is open source or not, or whether its a standard that anyone can learn about. Its certainly a standard, a very successful one indeed, and there are plenty of opensourced examples of encoding decoding with h.264, its when you come to actually use this H.264 suff in your app that you could get in a mess for purely legal/licensing/cost reasons. As for real-world examples of opensource being a good idea, a relevant example for this group would be the FireAnt aggregator. Soon after its birth the claim that it would be opensource was bandied about, which caused me to rant here at the time because the source wasnt actually open and I dont like to see phrases being used meaninglessly just because they are the cool thing. And tragically my worst fears came true, they changed their mind about opensourcing it at all, and strategies for commercialising it via a closed source model failed. Maybe it would have failed anyway due to massive competition from the lieks of iTunes,
[videoblogging] 720p HD and video editing on the iPhone 4
OK so finally the iPhone reaches a stage where it can start to live up to our expectations for what a powerful mobile device should be able to offer for video. Obviously not the only device in the world that can do these things but if Apple have designed the editing app very well and the camera quality is good enough, it should be quite a lovely experience. I held off from getting a 3GS and stayed with my no-video 3G iphone, so Im really looking forward to upgrading - Ive long missed the video that the Nokia N95 offered me before I got the iphone, but not the UI workflow of Nokia etc phones, and now I should finally be able to have a much better device on all fronts. I look forward to some clever video editing capabilities on the iPad too at some point, but it may take some time for this to be done really well.
Re: [videoblogging] 720p HD and video editing on the iPhone 4
Reel Director now works on the iPad for video editing. I don't own an iPad, but I do like the app on my iphone! Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: OK so finally the iPhone reaches a stage where it can start to live up to our expectations for what a powerful mobile device should be able to offer for video. Obviously not the only device in the world that can do these things but if Apple have designed the editing app very well and the camera quality is good enough, it should be quite a lovely experience. I held off from getting a 3GS and stayed with my no-video 3G iphone, so Im really looking forward to upgrading - Ive long missed the video that the Nokia N95 offered me before I got the iphone, but not the UI workflow of Nokia etc phones, and now I should finally be able to have a much better device on all fronts. I look forward to some clever video editing capabilities on the iPad too at some point, but it may take some time for this to be done really well. [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: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] 720p HD and video editing on the iPhone 4
Was just coming here to write the same post. I love mobile video. I've just spent the day shooting a remake of the ending of the Wicker Man on my Nokia N93 phone, with about 40 people. The lofi video quality will have its own charm, but I can't help feeling the irony of it being on the same day as this announcement. I'm so frustrated that it's taken Apple so long to introduce something that I've wanted since the iPhone first launched. Especially since Nokia have killed the editing in their N Series phones, and - as you say - the UI is so poor on Nokia. But this has tipped the balance for me. I'll be getting one as soon as I can afford it. Can't wait to play with it. Wish I had a bit more cash to splash on it right now. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 7 Jun 2010, at 21:16, elbowsofdeath wrote: OK so finally the iPhone reaches a stage where it can start to live up to our expectations for what a powerful mobile device should be able to offer for video. Obviously not the only device in the world that can do these things but if Apple have designed the editing app very well and the camera quality is good enough, it should be quite a lovely experience. I held off from getting a 3GS and stayed with my no-video 3G iphone, so Im really looking forward to upgrading - Ive long missed the video that the Nokia N95 offered me before I got the iphone, but not the UI workflow of Nokia etc phones, and now I should finally be able to have a much better device on all fronts. I look forward to some clever video editing capabilities on the iPad too at some point, but it may take some time for this to be done really well. [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: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Free and frozen...will the iPhone 4 video capabilities unfreeze?
I am off my contract at ATT. Finally, I breath the airwaves of a free man. Freedom's great responsibilities descend over me as I behold the daily onslaught of new smart phones. I know not what to do. Frozen, I keep my Nokia flip phone, held together with black duct tape. It soldiers on, and come what may, will someday be heralded as a very smart phone in its own right. But I just watched the glitzy iPhone 4 ad, http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#design-video and read through that design page. It's typical Apple. I'm now lusting irrationally...but amid the hype, I think this iPhone may be a guerrilla docu/human rights advocate/vlogger's dream!? and of course only for the next few minutes. - 720p 30fps - Bigger battery - Camera's flash will double as a fill light for video. So you could conceivably get an interview in pitch black if you're right up close to someone.I've lit someone's face with a cell phone screen... - Front and back cameras for pic in pic reporting and switching between the two in the fly for reactions and subject...maybe? - On board basic editing in iMovie - Geolocation tagging - Anything else? Will the iPhone 4 unfreeze me? Thoughts? Or are their any Android phones on the horizon like it, but with a mic input and removable batteries!!!??? Oy... -- ~ Caleb Clark - Program Director, Marlboro College Graduate School: http://gradcenter.marlboro.edu/academics/mat/faculty - Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com The problem with communication is the assumption it has been accomplished. - G. B. Shaw. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
