[videoblogging] Re: Compression best practices
I use VisualHub for the mac to make all of my versions. Flip4Mac handles the WMV encoding (enables it for VisualHub, IIRC). The only time I'll use quicktime player, FCP or Compressor is when I need to make sure I have control over keyframes, etc. As far as quicktime, I found out from Justin Kownacki (http://somethingtobedesired.com) that there's a color depth difference between h.264 and regular mpeg-4. I agree with him that regular produces richer colors, but I still use h.264 for the lower data rates. ~Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk qu...@... wrote: Hey all, I've used several compression UIs over the years, but I'm curious to hear what your favorites are, and what your process is. I really like SUPER by Erightsoft (http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html) but I usually have trouble converting from QT to WMV. Directshow seems to throw a wrench in the gears. I use QT Pro for almost all of my compression, but I'm still hunting for a good WMV solution. Windows Media Encoder isn't an option for me, as it almost always crashes for some reason. Is anyone still using Sorenson Squeeze? What is your process for compressing to all the different formats from your master? Mine: 1. Render uncompressed AVI at 1280x720p 2. Open in QT, Export Movie, h.264 1280x720p 2.5mbps 3. Open in QT, Export for Web, iPhone m4v and iPhone 3gp 4. Open in Super, Export to WMV9 1280x720p 2.5mbps Note: I'm on PC, but if you're on Mac please feel free to share too. Someone else may be interested. Thanks, Adam http://tangent.ws [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Flip Mino HD from FCP to h.264 for Blip/youtube
1. Why are you double-compressing? If you know you want to end up @ 640x360, do your initial AIC compression to that size. Maybe I missed that you want to have an HD version as well as a 640x360 version? 2. My workflow with FCP is Flip - 1280x720 AIC - edit in FCP - output 1280x720 AIC Master - VisualHub to make my .mp4 and .flv and .wmv versions. ~Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ryanne hodson ryanne.hod...@... wrote: hey robin looks like you have a good workflow going the one snag looks like the size of your quicktime file coming out of compressor i personally have had issues with compressor and use these as my compression settings- http://freevlog.org/content/ryannes-favorite-compression-settings your file should not be as big as 1.4 gigs, should be in the lower MB range (depending on the length anyway) blip will thank you for compressing your vids smaller too! let me know if you need more help -ryanne -- 508-264-0562 http://RyanIsHungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/ryanne AIM: VideoRodeo On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Robin Dickerautosaveva...@... wrote: Hello Videobloggers. I'm new to this group and so happy with my Flip Mino HD. Searching the emails for my answer, I see that someone noted that the Flip was like a gateway drugmade me laugh...So, I'm fairly buzzed at this point, and am wondering if there is such a thing as a magic combination of settings for Flip HD media making its way though MPEG Streamclip, fcp, and compressor to crosspost videos from Blip that are 8 min in length to my indexhibit.org website.Is there any way to adjust what Im doing (workflow below) to make the videos smaller and not sacrifice image quality? The perennial question What settings do you use for Flip Mino HD. Thus far this is my workflow: MpegStreamclip: Batch convert using Apple Intermediate Codec at Best / Audio Stereo 48khz, 1280 x 720 (unscaled) Into FCP: Sequence settings: 1280 x 720 (HDTV 720p 16:9) square none 30 AIC Through Compressor: h.264 300 kbs 640 x 360 Data rate 2.000 key frame: auto fast start: on frame rate: current frame controls: off multi pass: on frame reorder: on This creates a file size of 1.41 GB The image quality of the flash video on Blip looks horrible, and the gorgeous QT video on Blip takes ions to load on my indexhibit website. Kind thanks for any help. Robin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] AMC Files on Japanese Cell Phones?
Does anyone know how to properly set up and serve .AMC files so they can be viewed on Japanese cell phones? http://www.filesuffix.com/extension/amc.html ~Bill http://billcammack.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Frequency of Distribution
woah. Now *THAT* is an interesting concept. Your comp tape actually contains the rest of the video, being skipped over unless you select it. I like that a lot. :) I suppose, technically, you could do something similar with YouTube annotations, as far as linking each demo section to the video that it actually represents... ASSUMING you wanted to use YouTube at all, and assuming that there was an efficient way to skip back to the location you left from the original video. But yeah, that's a great idea! :D ~Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: there is also something called stretch film which if it became viable could be relevant here. I only know of one person who actually made something like it (using LiveStage Pro). the idea (comes from stretch hypertext) is that you have, say, a 2 minute version of the work, but at any point you can 'stretch' it to make that sequence or content area longer by getting more material, and so on until you may (in theory) view all the footage for that sequence. Bit like svg for video I guess. On 24/05/2009, at 5:56 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: I think it really does require a tiered approach, which would be similar to what you're saying... Small clips, tagged and warehoused, and then making larger programs out of the smaller clips. Not necessarily like a playlist function like YouTube uses, but focusing information into interesting enough segments to inform your blog readers and subscribers that there IS much more material if they choose to go check it out... but that if they're *not* interested, they won't be pelted with several updates every day, just to get the media out the door. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Frequency of Distribution
I think it really does require a tiered approach, which would be similar to what you're saying... Small clips, tagged and warehoused, and then making larger programs out of the smaller clips. Not necessarily like a playlist function like YouTube uses, but focusing information into interesting enough segments to inform your blog readers and subscribers that there IS much more material if they choose to go check it out... but that if they're *not* interested, they won't be pelted with several updates every day, just to get the media out the door. ~Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: I think as Bill describes in his more recent post, imagine you've got heaps of short clips, each more or less about the same thing. Instead of editing them into works, or publishing them as single clips, imagine a cloud of clips, with for instance tags. (Simplest model.) Then you could use this to make individual works, while also letting all clips with a tag become separate works. On 21/05/2009, at 10:33 AM, Kath O'Donnell wrote: Jay Adrian, thanks for the examples of video tagging. Seth Keen's work looks very cool. I always thought mpeg7 would be used for this but haven't heard much about it anymore ( only looked into it years ago for some facial recognition stuff which didn't end up happening). I shoot way too much video ( take too many photos). most of it would be classed as dross to anyone but me (Adrian :) ) but I've found I've looked back on it and found bits I've missed etc or seen things in a different light after time, so I like having the extra video. ( my videos are really just for me/family/friends) it would be cool to tag it like on flickr though (but I must admit I only do basic tagging on flickr too - not down to subject of individual shots). one of the early videoblogging projects was for tagging clips wasn't it? I forget the name of it. started with M I think? cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Frequency of Distribution
on multiple hard drives waiting to be edited. I am hoping that camcorder manufacturers will soon add ability to add premade editable titles and end credits right in-camcorder. This way the filmmaker simply houses the footage between the title and the end credits while on the road, glues the resulting video, transfers this video file to a computer and, viola, it's ready for transcoding and publishing. :) It would be nice to have transcoding ability in camcorder as well but so that it's redundant allowing to be able to film while this process is taking place. Imagine, you activate Youtube HD H.264 transcode and within an hour you get the ready-to-upload file? Your thoughts?? Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Hey All! :D Hope everyone's well and in good spirits. I haven't been around the email group, but I've been on the scene this whole time. Actually, recently, I had the pleasure of running into Jay Dedman unexpectedly @ Burp Castle haha, Great bonus to my day. :D Anyway.. I recently bought a camera that connects to your computer via USB and fits in your pocket. I already had an HD camera, but I wanted something for run-n-gun. My goal was to achieve daily video output via filming at least 5 upload-worthy segments each week, or at least in one day, so I could release them during the week. What I found was that depending on what your style is, those cameras can hold a ton of footage. If your style is to run the camera and hope something happens, you won't get much. If your style is to recognize potential moments and be prepared, what you end up with is a bunch of snippets that amount to more footage than you needed for that week. Actually, I should back up here. Video is how I express myself. It's my hobby as well as what I do for money. When I'm not creating video for a client, I'm creating video for myself.. because this is what I do. If this were a business application, it wouldn't matter how much I shoot, because it would all be funneled into the allocated release date and TRT of the production and anything that's excess would be discarded... Except, I don't shoot video to discard it. I shoot video to express it. I shoot to share, because I was already there. I know what happened. I experienced it already. I've been putting video online for the last three years because I want other people to be able to experience (as much as they're able to) what I've experienced, vicariously. So my goal is to release the material that I shoot... not shoot enough for coverage so that I can make my minimum requirement for my show(s). The 'problem' is that my run-n-gun camera has made me too efficient in creating videos that I'd like to release. My goal of having a daily video output has been far surpassed, and now I'm considering what I want to do with my excess footage. The solution I've arrived at with the help of brainstorming with friends that follow my feed(s) is to dump all my footage to a host (in my case, blip.tv) and only release special episodes and/or compilation/explanatory videos to my blog with links to my blip shows for the people that actually feel interested in watching the raw material. The reason I think this is the way to go is that I've become bogged down in releasing episodes of video that I shot two weeks (14 days) ago. The way around this backlog, IMO is to shoot as much video as I want, dump it to my host, figure out some sort of representative video that I want to create for my blog's RSS feed, give people an idea of what's going on over at the host and link them in case they're interested in checking it out. Does this make sense? :) I'm going to read back through the group and find out if people are even still talking about issues like this. Y'all might not be, haha In which case, disregard this note. :) Technology has improved to the point where we can effortlessly output as much material as we like or as much as we are able to produce. I think we're facing a new issue of How much SHOULD I output?. I've seen too much footage hit the cutting room floor and eventually the tape erasure bins from when I used to edit NYC news to throw away footage that I've shot that might mean something to myself or someone else. At the same time, I don't want to harp on one topic that I filmed two weeks ago for an entire month, because I'm trying to output only 1-3 episodes per day. If anybody has any ideas, I'd love to hear them. I'll read back to see if there are any recent threads I can contribute to. Cheers! :D ~ Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com/
[videoblogging] Frequency of Distribution
Hey All! :D Hope everyone's well and in good spirits. I haven't been around the email group, but I've been on the scene this whole time. Actually, recently, I had the pleasure of running into Jay Dedman unexpectedly @ Burp Castle haha, Great bonus to my day. :D Anyway.. I recently bought a camera that connects to your computer via USB and fits in your pocket. I already had an HD camera, but I wanted something for run-n-gun. My goal was to achieve daily video output via filming at least 5 upload-worthy segments each week, or at least in one day, so I could release them during the week. What I found was that depending on what your style is, those cameras can hold a ton of footage. If your style is to run the camera and hope something happens, you won't get much. If your style is to recognize potential moments and be prepared, what you end up with is a bunch of snippets that amount to more footage than you needed for that week. Actually, I should back up here. Video is how I express myself. It's my hobby as well as what I do for money. When I'm not creating video for a client, I'm creating video for myself.. because this is what I do. If this were a business application, it wouldn't matter how much I shoot, because it would all be funneled into the allocated release date and TRT of the production and anything that's excess would be discarded... Except, I don't shoot video to discard it. I shoot video to express it. I shoot to share, because I was already there. I know what happened. I experienced it already. I've been putting video online for the last three years because I want other people to be able to experience (as much as they're able to) what I've experienced, vicariously. So my goal is to release the material that I shoot... not shoot enough for coverage so that I can make my minimum requirement for my show(s). The 'problem' is that my run-n-gun camera has made me too efficient in creating videos that I'd like to release. My goal of having a daily video output has been far surpassed, and now I'm considering what I want to do with my excess footage. The solution I've arrived at with the help of brainstorming with friends that follow my feed(s) is to dump all my footage to a host (in my case, blip.tv) and only release special episodes and/or compilation/explanatory videos to my blog with links to my blip shows for the people that actually feel interested in watching the raw material. The reason I think this is the way to go is that I've become bogged down in releasing episodes of video that I shot two weeks (14 days) ago. The way around this backlog, IMO is to shoot as much video as I want, dump it to my host, figure out some sort of representative video that I want to create for my blog's RSS feed, give people an idea of what's going on over at the host and link them in case they're interested in checking it out. Does this make sense? :) I'm going to read back through the group and find out if people are even still talking about issues like this. Y'all might not be, haha In which case, disregard this note. :) Technology has improved to the point where we can effortlessly output as much material as we like or as much as we are able to produce. I think we're facing a new issue of How much SHOULD I output?. I've seen too much footage hit the cutting room floor and eventually the tape erasure bins from when I used to edit NYC news to throw away footage that I've shot that might mean something to myself or someone else. At the same time, I don't want to harp on one topic that I filmed two weeks ago for an entire month, because I'm trying to output only 1-3 episodes per day. If anybody has any ideas, I'd love to hear them. I'll read back to see if there are any recent threads I can contribute to. Cheers! :D ~ Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Perian / iChat Video conflict
Yeah man. iChat video is garbage when it has to go through two routers (one on each end) or from Mac to PC. Very flaky. I use Skype, myself. Flawless. Also, since Skype upgraded their video from like *5*fps to 25fps, it's really the app of choice. I'll have to try the gmail one. My gmail contacts are in the jabber section of my iChat, so I haven't bothered to do it through the actual Google Mail website. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz schl...@... wrote: I don't know about you, but I've always had problems with iChat video. Never worked that well for me. But since Gmail now has video chat, I've started to use it often and it hasnt broken on me yet. Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Bill Cammack billcamm...@... wrote: Hey All! :D Long time no see. I hope all is well with everyone, and Happy Holidays!!! all around. :) If you use Perian to handle codecs and your iChat video suddenly stopped showing the other person, you need to roll back your Perian version to 1.1.2. The link to download 1.1.2 is http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/30931vid=570971mode=info If you want complete instructions, I posted them @ http://billcammack.com/2008/12/30/perian-v-113-breaks-incoming-ichat-video/ Good Luck and Best Success in 2009! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Perian / iChat Video conflict
Hey All! :D Long time no see. I hope all is well with everyone, and Happy Holidays!!! all around. :) If you use Perian to handle codecs and your iChat video suddenly stopped showing the other person, you need to roll back your Perian version to 1.1.2. The link to download 1.1.2 is http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/30931vid=570971mode=info If you want complete instructions, I posted them @ http://billcammack.com/2008/12/30/perian-v-113-breaks-incoming-ichat-video/ Good Luck and Best Success in 2009! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com
[videoblogging] Discussion about Professionals Web Video
I made a post this morning on my site, and I've received some interesting comments from the likes of Matt from http://neovids.tv and Justin from http://somethingtobedesired.com . I thought comment #9, from DJ was really interesting so I felt like sharing: http://billcammack.com/2008/09/19/why-professionals-avoid-web-video/ or http://peaurl.com/YKvV Basically, the point of the post and comments is the over-emphasis of marketing when it comes to web video and the under-emphasis of VIDEO when it comes to web video. :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com
[videoblogging] Re: About Comments
haha One of the reasons I don't use my YouTube account is that I don't care what those idiots have to say. OTOH, I enjoy comments on my actual site, because there's a slightly higher threshold and barrier to entry. It's easier to find things on YouTube, so you get a lot of comments from the cheap seats. I've found that on my site, people tend to post relevant questions and statements, whether they agree or disagree. Then again, I have a spam filter that gets rid of a lot of the garbage. So, I think it all comes down to what value YOU have received from your comments recently and whether you feel like the pros outweigh the cons. If I felt like I was getting garbage from my viewers/readers, I'd shut off comments immediately and let people email me if they wanted to discuss anything. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey all Heath started me thinking about comments as I'm about to put up my videoblog redesign (finally) and I'm starting to think that I don't want comments enabled. As the years go, and as buddy Merlin puts a href= http://www.43folders.com/2008/09/10/time-attention-creative-work;here/a: for an endless number of reasons that you've probably seen for yourself across the web, the quality and care of visitor contributions everywhere has hit what I truly hope is rock bottom. I agree. Here's another post that has me thinking about this: http://shawnblanc.net/2007/why-daring-fireball-is-comment-free/ There's so many ways for friends and family to let me know that they liked/not liked, that all the other trolling crap doesn't seem all that needed. Maybe because I may drop comments from my videoblog I guess it may just be called a Video Site? -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Flickr Creative Commons (also video-sharing sites Creative Commons)
Yeah, Marcus. That's the group. :) Does anyone know how much they charge? Is it per DAY of checking the net? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 31, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: Yeah, Adam's right. Ultimately, this is all bullshit and only comes into effect if someone does like Prince and hires people to scour the net looking for instances where someone used your image or sounds and then pays people to make it so that that situation goes away. All you have to do is look on YouTube for gazillions of instances where people have music in their videos that they didn't secure the rights to and also video and pictures that they didn't secure the rights to. sounds like a service oops! someone's already offering it I noticed these folks sniffing around Ourmedia the other day. http://www.websheriff.com/websheriff/services.htm lloks like anyone can be a prince now ;) markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Flickr Creative Commons (also video-sharing sites Creative Commons)
Yeah, Adam's right. Ultimately, this is all bullshit and only comes into effect if someone does like Prince and hires people to scour the net looking for instances where someone used your image or sounds and then pays people to make it so that that situation goes away. All you have to do is look on YouTube for gazillions of instances where people have music in their videos that they didn't secure the rights to and also video and pictures that they didn't secure the rights to. So, like Adam says... The only way to avoid your pictures being illegally used is to not post them AT ALL. That's not an option, so make sure you put either ARR or a CC license on your media, learn what legal options are avilable to you IF you catch someone and hope for the best. Now that we're talking about this, there's at least one site that scrapes THIS GROUP and will have THIS POST on it. I know, because it shows up in my Google Alerts. As far as the situation of someone using your picture on a forum, you've skipped the part where you have to FIND OUT that someone did that. NOW you have to find out what agencies you can contact, what the process is to get him/her to cease desist, and how much that's going to cost you. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If All Rights Reserved, then he can't use your photo without your permission, whatever he says. Not to split hairs with Mr. Howe, but he definitely *can* use your photo without your permission, just not legally. Anything you put on The Internet can be used without your permission. Nature of the Beast, and in general a good thing. Since you're asking for advice, I suggest getting over it and moving on. And please don't sue me. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could help a bit if you told us what picture, and where it's being used, and even gave a link to the forum where he's taunting you. Flickr allows you to set permissions on your photos. I believe it's All Rights Reserved by default, and that you can manually set various levels of Creative Commons permissions individually for each photo or by default. Without seeing the photo page on Flickr, I can't tell what licence you've issued for the picture. Probably All Rights Reserved, but if you've changed it to Creative Commons then he has certain rights to reuse it according to what licence you used. If All Rights Reserved, then he can't use your photo without your permission, whatever he says. A simple Google search would confirm this to you and him. You can Google about your rights under the DMCA, and issue him with a formal notice to stop using your image, also his web host, or whatever service he's using to steal it. But again, more info - and if you want some of us to go to the forum to back you up and discuss it with him, post a link. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 29-Aug-08, at 8:21 PM, B Yen wrote: I have a Flickr account, have been uploading pictures. No image watermark like COPYRIGHT (c)2008 my name. I want to confirm that people can't use my photos without permission. Can someone summarize what my rights are? Some clown deliberately used my photo is taunting me on a forum that he can do it. A bunch of his redneck friends are openly harassing me, threatening me. They are saying something to the effect an image made publicly available, is fair game. Uh, no. There is a modification of Copyright Law (Berne convention, forgot what year), where as soon as the photo is made..it's automatically copyrighted. PHotographer owns photo. HOwever, there are other factors determining what a photographer can sue for, when infringed. Statutory damages, etc. Can someone clarify this for me, given photo/video sharing websites Creative Commons licenses? Here is what I found on Flickr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr Licensing Flickr offers users the ability to release their images under certain common usage licenses. The licensing options primarily include the Creative Commons 2.0 attribution-based and minor content-control licenses - although jurisdiction and version-specific licenses cannot be selected. As with tags, the site allows easy searching of only those images that fall under a specific license.[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: To get on iTunes - do I go blip pro or buy qt coding software?
You're welcome, Dave. In case I wasn't clear, they're BOTH 4x3. If you're going to output in square pixels anyway, like for a computer screen, you're going to end up making your files 640x480 anyway, so you may as well stick with the 640 and get the extra 30 frames per second with no real visible quality loss. I use the NV3. http://billcammack.com/2008/03/31/302-reelsolidtv-s03-ep020-paparazzi-practice/ The value of 720x480 is if your final output format was going to be NTSC DV. Instead of having to scale 640x480 into 720x480, it's already in those dimensions. Also, I was just mentioning what the widescreen ratio would be. The NV3 doesn't do widescreen at all. Good Luck! Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, daveacbliptv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: 720x480 is not widescreen. It's a higher resolution 4x3, except with non-square pixels. Also, on the NV3, if you record using 720x480, it only goes 20 frames per second, as opposed to 30. Try it out to see if you like giving up the frame rate for the higher resolution. I haven't seen much difference, so I use 640x480. FYI, widescreen would be 853x480. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com Thanks Bill - I didn't know about the drop to 20fps - or the nonsquare bit. Since my vblog is of the 'talking head' variety I think I will stay with 4:3 for now at least. Looks like I'll be better staying as I am for the moment and just try to build an audience by 'content' - then decide if it justifies the outlay of either software or pro status - or even better hardware. Thanks to all for input so far. Here's my 18 second trailer:- http://blip.tv/file/1141107 Cheers, daveac
[videoblogging] Re: To get on iTunes - do I go blip pro or buy qt coding software?
720x480 is not widescreen. It's a higher resolution 4x3, except with non-square pixels. Also, on the NV3, if you record using 720x480, it only goes 20 frames per second, as opposed to 30. Try it out to see if you like giving up the frame rate for the higher resolution. I haven't seen much difference, so I use 640x480. FYI, widescreen would be 853x480. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, daveacbliptv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Dave, never be afraid to add a link to your videoblog on your messages so we can watch it, especially when asking for help :) What PC editing program are you using? Many PC apps now have an iPod export setting. That's all the Blip .m4v conversion is. As much as I think it's worth supporting Blip, there are cheaper and free ways of doing an iPod conversion if that's all you want. (as an aside to Blip: I think if you want to get more Pro users, you need to seriously upgrade your transcoding offering to allow multiple formats, including 3gp) If you're using something like Windows Movie Maker which doesn't have an iPod export setting, you could use a free service like MPEGStreamclip to convert to almost any format you want, including iPod: http://www.squared5.com/ A lot of people on this list use it. Your current AVI file is about 200MB for 15 minutes. An m4v iPod file would probably work out at about 150MB or less. It shouldn't double your file size. 10MB per minute is average and acceptable for an iPod file (which is an H264-encoded MP4 file at 640x480) It's worth converting to a Quicktime-compatible format in any case. As you know, you can upload multiple formats to Blip for the same episode. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv Thanks for the quick reply. I don't use ANY software - I record live in one take directly onto my little Samsung NV3 digital camera. No titles, no editing, no end credits. The camera saves as 640x480 avi (mpeg4) files - though I've just noticed I can move up to 720x480 (widescreen) which I will do for next week. The vblog is:- http://daveac.blip.tv/ And here is the most recent one No 6 http://blip.tv/file/1214627 The pro option does give you boxes to tick for the formats you want I think. Thanks, daveac
[videoblogging] Re: Kevin Kelly on the next 5000 days of the web
You have to do it like this http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: platform?? site, whatever, blah On 26-Aug-08, at 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote: Yeah, thanks Yahoo. Glad to see you're still improving the platform. Safe to say that a mailing list platform which breaks links longer than a certain number of characters is *not* the future of the web. Here's a short version of that link: http://tinyurl.com/kevinkelly On 26-Aug-08, at 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote: As I posted the interview of Jay and Ryanne yesterday, I was thinking about how far we've come since 2004/5. And just then a friend sent me this talk by Kevin Kelly last year, saying the web is only 5000 years old, and trying to predict what might happen in the next 5000 days. He starts by talking about how 10 years ago, everyone looked at the future of the web as if it was going to be TV but better but that that's not where it's gone - and then talks about media among a lot of other things. I think it's relevant here because it's interesting to speculate about where what we're doing is going. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Jay and Ryanne interviewed in Beijing on BoingBoing TV
I hear what you're saying, but bills have to be paid. I don't know anything about boingboing, so I can't speak for them specifically, but that's the game that's being played here. Get people to click on your video, get people to click on your ads, get revenue to pay people's salaries. There's nothing else going on here. It's like when you make a Ning community. You can make it for free if you leave the google ads on your site and lose the use of an entire sidebar... or you can pay Ning to make it worth their while to ditch the ads and let you use the sidebar. Lots of people choose to make free Ning sites and lots of people choose to watch free boingboing videos with whatever ads you saw on them. I know you know this already and were just stating facts, :) and I agree with you for the most part. The thing that SUCKS for me with overlay ads is that you don't know when they're going to come up, so as the content creator, when you go to font someone in THE LOWER 3RD OF THE SCREEN, some bullshit ad comes up over your title and the effect you were creating as art is completely lost. If that's the only time you mention someone's name/title in the piece, people are in the dark the whole time. Also, like you said, overlay ads of ANY kind destroy immersion, but like I said, it's about making your money back, not making art that is poignant and has the desired effect on the viewer that the artist (content creator) intended. Removing ads would defeat the purpose of doing the videos in the first place. (Again, having nothing specifically to do with boingboing) Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am glad jay and ryanne are back safe, I am glad that boing boing and others are trying to report thingsbutand for me it's a big butthe ads on the video piece from boing boing turned me offI mean, here are jay and ryanne talking about people being detained and how that they are basicly trying to get out of town before they themselves are detained and I get some upbeat rockin ad for, heck I don't even know but it just seemed sooo out of placeit detracted me from the overall message...maybe it's just me...but. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/08/25/boing-boing-tv-proti.html Last week, eight American citizens were detained in Beijing for participating in pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests near the site of the 2008 Olympics, with Students for a Free Tibet. Two videobloggers who documented those protest and guerrilla art installations evaded detention, and spoke to Boing Boing TV on Friday Beijing time about why they were there, what they witnessed, and why it mattered. Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson of Ryanishungry.com spoke to us over Skype from a hostel in Beijing. One of the actions they documented in photo and video was the hanging of an LED throwies light banner, below, which read FREE TIBET. We agreed to hold this Boing Boing tv episode until after we received word that they'd safely left the country. They have returned home, so I am posting the piece today. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Jay and Ryanne interviewed in Beijing on BoingBoing TV
hmm... I had assumed that Heath was talking about overlay ads DURING the program. I don't have a problem with pre-roll and post-roll ads of whatever type. They just have to be integrated properly with the subject matter. I say if pre-roll's going to be peppy and bouncy, get it out of the way in the first 3 seconds of the show, before the on-air talent sets up the piece. Then again, unfortunately, some groups don't burn their ads in directly. I forget what the name is of the service, but when I did my Indy Mogul episode, the plan was to provide two segments that made up the entire show, and the commercial in between was added by that program/service. I'll assume that's so the ads can be dynamically inserted. Anyway, like I said in the other post, it's the difference between doing art for the sake of art and doing art so that people will stop by and click on it and give you some ad revenue. hahaha It's only going to get worse from here on out! :D --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it was funny - just made me laugh at the advertiser - but yeah, i'm pretty amazed at the stupidity of advertisers, still making one-size-fits-all adverts, even little 5 second pre-roll ones. simplistic ideas of brand identity etc mean they can't get their heads around supplying a variety of different tones to be used depending on the content. without realising that this kind of use of your brand makes you seem like an idiot. they might as well have inserted the title sequence from The Hills. On 26-Aug-08, at 9:52 AM, Heath wrote: I am glad jay and ryanne are back safe, I am glad that boing boing and others are trying to report thingsbutand for me it's a big butthe ads on the video piece from boing boing turned me offI mean, here are jay and ryanne talking about people being detained and how that they are basicly trying to get out of town before they themselves are detained and I get some upbeat rockin ad for, heck I don't even know but it just seemed sooo out of placeit detracted me from the overall message...maybe it's just me...but. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/08/25/boing-boing-tv-proti.html Last week, eight American citizens were detained in Beijing for participating in pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests near the site of the 2008 Olympics, with Students for a Free Tibet. Two videobloggers who documented those protest and guerrilla art installations evaded detention, and spoke to Boing Boing TV on Friday Beijing time about why they were there, what they witnessed, and why it mattered. Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson of Ryanishungry.com spoke to us over Skype from a hostel in Beijing. One of the actions they documented in photo and video was the hanging of an LED throwies light banner, below, which read FREE TIBET. We agreed to hold this Boing Boing tv episode until after we received word that they'd safely left the country. They have returned home, so I am posting the piece today. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Jay and Ryanne interviewed in Beijing on BoingBoing TV
Well, like I said, I agree with you entirely. I was shocked enough just reading the twitter or link here or whatever that informed me that they had been over there AT ALL. I thought they were in the sticks somewhere making bread and not using plastic. When I read the link, I was like THEY could have been caught up in it TOO? :O. So, yeah, when I went to the video, it had extra import, gloom and doom for me because at the time they recorded it, they still could have gotten busted. Ads, of course, are going to pull me out of that feeling, so they're certainly unwanted... as far as the art of the piece. As far as what kind of ads they might have served on it, that's an interesting point. Unless boingboing does a consistently gloom and doom category of videos, there's no reason for them to have specifically targeted videos to specific videos. Like, there's no reason that their audience watching THIS video would have been different from the audience that watches the rest of their videos, whatever they're about. So while I agree that the ads could have been more in tune with the mood of the individual video, at this point, I don't think it's feasible to tell an advertiser We're going to do one solemn video out of 100, maybe... so pay us to advertise your product once in a blue moon. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh indeed I do know that is the nature of the biz but I can't help but think, maybe an ad for not smoking or maybe a company that is doing green or social things, etc...maybe that would have been a better fit than the ad that was on there...again I know the realility but for me this was the first time it really hit me...maybe it's because I know Jay and Ryanne, I don't know...but... Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: I hear what you're saying, but bills have to be paid. I don't know anything about boingboing, so I can't speak for them specifically, but that's the game that's being played here. Get people to click on your video, get people to click on your ads, get revenue to pay people's salaries. There's nothing else going on here. It's like when you make a Ning community. You can make it for free if you leave the google ads on your site and lose the use of an entire sidebar... or you can pay Ning to make it worth their while to ditch the ads and let you use the sidebar. Lots of people choose to make free Ning sites and lots of people choose to watch free boingboing videos with whatever ads you saw on them. I know you know this already and were just stating facts, :) and I agree with you for the most part. The thing that SUCKS for me with overlay ads is that you don't know when they're going to come up, so as the content creator, when you go to font someone in THE LOWER 3RD OF THE SCREEN, some bullshit ad comes up over your title and the effect you were creating as art is completely lost. If that's the only time you mention someone's name/title in the piece, people are in the dark the whole time. Also, like you said, overlay ads of ANY kind destroy immersion, but like I said, it's about making your money back, not making art that is poignant and has the desired effect on the viewer that the artist (content creator) intended. Removing ads would defeat the purpose of doing the videos in the first place. (Again, having nothing specifically to do with boingboing) Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am glad jay and ryanne are back safe, I am glad that boing boing and others are trying to report thingsbutand for me it's a big butthe ads on the video piece from boing boing turned me offI mean, here are jay and ryanne talking about people being detained and how that they are basicly trying to get out of town before they themselves are detained and I get some upbeat rockin ad for, heck I don't even know but it just seemed sooo out of placeit detracted me from the overall message...maybe it's just me...but. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/08/25/boing-boing-tv-proti.html Last week, eight American citizens were detained in Beijing for participating in pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests near the site of the 2008 Olympics, with Students for a Free Tibet. Two videobloggers who documented those protest and guerrilla art installations evaded detention, and spoke to Boing Boing TV on Friday Beijing time about why they were there, what they witnessed, and why it mattered. Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson
[videoblogging] Re: Jay and Ryanne interviewed in Beijing on BoingBoing TV
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's funny I didn't even notice the ad's DURING the interview just the one's before and afterI was too distracked by the blonde to notice the overlays.. ;) That was my fault for ASSUMING you meant mid-roll overlay ads. I'm not aware that boingboing even USES those. I didn't mean to imply that there were any overlay ads on the Jay/Ryanne video at all. Another thing that is funny for me, is that I have always been in the ad's arn't so bad campI know it's still the model and for the most part I don't mind them, I ingnore most of them actually...so for me to say ads are wrong here is to me a bit funny in itselfI really do think it's because I know Jay and Ryanne and knowing what could have happened and to be honest what could still happencause I am sure their names are on some list now in China Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com That's the whole thing. Ads aren't so bad because the content people are watching has no depth to it. This was a video done by people that a lot of us have hung out with in person and understand their mannerisms. They were visibly shook in that video. It was compelling to watch and listen to them, ESPECIALLY since I didn't even know they had gone over there, so I got to watch it in the context of They didn't know if they were going to get out of China clean, AND they hadn't heard from Brian Jeff for three days. Just COMPELLING is the word, and it amplifies the contrast against the advertisements. As far as Rupert's suggestion of several versions of a commercial, you're asking the company to deal with three different music/dialogue/fx mixes (which is probably negligible for a couple of seconds worth of commercial), and you're also asking for human intervention when it comes to what version of the ad to run on which video. Most likely, they have an automated ad server and you're talking about added expenses without related ROI. I agree with the idea, as far as attempting to maintain the integrity of the art, but like I said, it's not about the art. It's about hits and ad sales. By the time you press play, they've already got you. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Well, like I said, I agree with you entirely. I was shocked enough just reading the twitter or link here or whatever that informed me that they had been over there AT ALL. I thought they were in the sticks somewhere making bread and not using plastic. When I read the link, I was like THEY could have been caught up in it TOO? :O. So, yeah, when I went to the video, it had extra import, gloom and doom for me because at the time they recorded it, they still could have gotten busted. Ads, of course, are going to pull me out of that feeling, so they're certainly unwanted... as far as the art of the piece. As far as what kind of ads they might have served on it, that's an interesting point. Unless boingboing does a consistently gloom and doom category of videos, there's no reason for them to have specifically targeted videos to specific videos. Like, there's no reason that their audience watching THIS video would have been different from the audience that watches the rest of their videos, whatever they're about. So while I agree that the ads could have been more in tune with the mood of the individual video, at this point, I don't think it's feasible to tell an advertiser We're going to do one solemn video out of 100, maybe... so pay us to advertise your product once in a blue moon. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Oh indeed I do know that is the nature of the biz but I can't help but think, maybe an ad for not smoking or maybe a company that is doing green or social things, etc...maybe that would have been a better fit than the ad that was on there...again I know the realility but for me this was the first time it really hit me...maybe it's because I know Jay and Ryanne, I don't know...but... Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: I hear what you're saying, but bills have to be paid. I don't know anything about boingboing, so I can't speak for them specifically, but that's the game that's being played here. Get people to click on your video, get people to click on your ads, get revenue to pay people's salaries. There's nothing else going on here. It's like when you make a Ning community. You can make it for free if you leave the google ads on your site and lose the use of an entire sidebar... or you can pay Ning to make it worth their while to ditch the ads
[videoblogging] Re: Jay and Ryanne interviewed in Beijing on BoingBoing TV
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't accept those excuses on their behalf. My point is not about art, or they way the advert affects the way the viewer engages with the interview. I wouldn't expect them to give a damn about the effect on the aesthetics of the video their ad is inserted into. My point is about them not realising or caring how bad it makes them look. In this case, it's not an automatic ad server. It's an advert that's been edited in there by a human editor. If they think the human editor who's inserting their advert can't make a basic judgement call about which of two versions they've supplied - low key or upbeat - to insert into a low key or upbeat video, then they assume the editor is an idiot, and why are they allowing their advert to be included in that video at all? That's not an argument that stands up in this case. I see what you're saying. Agreed. If they're using burned-in advertisements, jacking up the flow of your show does make you look like you don't know how to produce, or that there's no EP on the project to veto poor decision-making. And in this case, the inclusion of that version of the advert made their product look cheap and shitty. That's the point. That's why they're so stupid. If they'd just given the editor a version without the music - not a big deal, given the money spent - it would have been fine. But that's not the way they think - probably for all the reasons you've given. So they waste their money, instead of spending a tiny amount more of their own time producing a slightly alternative version. Surely in the future, agencies will be smarter and wise up to the control they have over the context in which their adverts are displayed. If it were me, I sure would. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv I would, too... for sure. In the future, it will be different, because there will be more options and outlets for the same material so quality and immersion will make a difference in viewership and revenue. At this point, a lot of shows and now studios are the only game in town so there's really no reason for them to devote any more time, effort or resources into the little things that would make people appreciate their productions more, rather than turn them off. I still like your idea of versions of ads and applying the appropriate mood to videos that are somber or comedic or whatever ESPECIALLY if they're being burned in by human editors. On 26-Aug-08, at 1:57 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: As far as Rupert's suggestion of several versions of a commercial, you're asking the company to deal with three different music/dialogue/fx mixes (which is probably negligible for a couple of seconds worth of commercial), and you're also asking for human intervention when it comes to what version of the ad to run on which video. Most likely, they have an automated ad server and you're talking about added expenses without related ROI. I agree with the idea, as far as attempting to maintain the integrity of the art, but like I said, it's not about the art. It's about hits and ad sales. By the time you press play, they've already got you. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Jay and Ryanne interviewed in Beijing on BoingBoing TV
Thanks for the link. So interesting. I'm glad they were able to avoid detention. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/08/25/boing-boing-tv-proti.html Last week, eight American citizens were detained in Beijing for participating in pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests near the site of the 2008 Olympics, with Students for a Free Tibet. Two videobloggers who documented those protest and guerrilla art installations evaded detention, and spoke to Boing Boing TV on Friday Beijing time about why they were there, what they witnessed, and why it mattered. Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson of Ryanishungry.com spoke to us over Skype from a hostel in Beijing. One of the actions they documented in photo and video was the hanging of an LED throwies light banner, below, which read FREE TIBET. We agreed to hold this Boing Boing tv episode until after we received word that they'd safely left the country. They have returned home, so I am posting the piece today. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: CBS videoblogs
I agree with Dan, entirely. That was the point of my previous post on this topic. In case people watched that and thought it was something that was done in a bootstrapped fashion, please refer to the dual-camera shoot, complete with boom operator (read: a third crew member that's getting paid to be on-set to record the sound). According to http://forums.creativecow.net/archivepost/30/479679 from 2004, Non union sound mixers are getting $350 in most areas of the country, including flyover. Union adds about $100 to the cost. Boom operators get less, aproximately $250 for non union and $100 more for union. Most of the extra $100 goes to pension and hospital benefits. So just for the sound RECORDING part of that show, they were spending $350/day by *2004* union standards. Then you add the two camera operators, the two actors and whatever extras were in the different episodes, post production editing, sweetening and sound mixing. There's nothing to hate on about this situation. It's business as usual. I'm just saying that a lot of people read this group for basically DiY information. It's completely disingenuous to allow people to think that a couple of actors took a camera on their own, shot something on their own, with no lighting, no sound recording help, directed it themselves for the different angles, scripted it themselves, edited it themselves, sound mixed it themselves, compressed it themselves, built their own website and embedded the video themselves. ANYBODY with a budget could do the exact same thing. Dan's point, which I agree with, is that it would be just as interesting to watch *YOU* take your little telephone-camera and document your move to Canada... or your attempts to get rich making industrial videos... or your attempt to put together your YouTube game/video using annotations. The point of interest is the characters involved, NOT the fact that it's a multi-camera shoot with at least three crew members being paid by the hour to create it. For instance, now that I'm thinking about it... Go watch Mike's Project Pedal: http://blog.projectpedal.com/archives/2004_09_01_projectpedal_archive.html . He gets out his hand-held camera and tells people what's been going on with his film, like the drives failed, or they're almost finished loading, or his relationship broke up or whatever. It's real. It's way more interesting, and it's way less expensive. Having said that... You bring up interesting points about budget inflation. Unfortunately, some of that inflation is necessary, as I'm sure you understand. If you don't have a boom operator or at least a sound recorder, your audio's liable to be uneven, which means you have to fix it in the mix if you can, which means you pay more on the post end and less on the production end. If you don't have two cameras shooting simultaneously, you have to get the actors to act AT LEAST twice as long to do their lines AGAIN after you set up the camera and lights for the other angle. If you don't have someone scripting/directing the production, you have to hire someone like me to make SOMETHING out of your NOTHING when you film a bunch of random stuff with no storyline or character development to it. So, yeah... COULD this show have been done with one camera, by a couple of actors documenting something? Sure. Was it? No. So I think it's valid and relevant for Dan to point out that there are shows and stories going on right here, such as http://projectpedal.com and http://epicfu.com and http://somethingtobedesired.com/ that are ACTUALLY about people bootstrapping and trying to make it which AREN'T being faked and ARE way more interesting. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that's how you make money. These people aren't doing it for the thrill or the art. They don't care about making something 'interesting' if they don't get paid. Supposedly most Hollywood movies lose money... but the hundreds of people who work on them get paid a lot of money. And the bigger the budget, the bigger the fee that the producer and principals get paid. In this case, why on earth would the producer set up a low budget videoblog for clarkandmichael.com, with a total cost per episode of just a few hundred dollars, when he can artificially inflate the budget by hiring lots of people and get CBS to pay 10 or 20 times as much, especially if he's getting 20 per cent of the production cost as a fee? I've made low budget corporate videos and web videos professionally for years now, and somehow didn't realise that it would never make me rich. If you want to make money out of media, you don't make low budget videos. You set up a big operation with a big impressive budget and get somebody to pay and a bunch of people to actually make it. Then, if nobody watches when it's broadcast, your bank account still has tens of thousands of dollars
[videoblogging] Re: CBS videoblogs
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah - sorry if I wasn't clear. That seemed like a rebuttal of my point, but I assumed it'd be clear from the context of everything I've written here and from my videoblog that I wasn't disagreeing with Dan's comment that It looks like it took a team of people being paid a lot of money to fake something that is much more interestingwhat I've witnessed from this group here. I agree with that. Nor was I passing judgement about the content of the clarkandmichael and the way it's been made, and what it represents, though perhaps I should have done to make myself clearer. I was just saying that it's no surprise to me that people with lots of money fake a cheap look while still spending lots of money instead of just shooting it the same way people with no money do. Because that's how they make more money. Yes. That's the part of your post that I found very interesting. It's like when someone wastes thousands of dollars per episode paying for a studio to live-stream their show when they could have done it for *FREE* on Ustream, BlogTV, Kyte, etc etc etc etc etc. Now, thanks to what you said... This finally makes sense to me. Pay the thousands of dollars for the studio because you can turn around and tell someone else to pay you even MORE money, plus your percentage for doing the live episodes of your boring-ass show. If you used ustream, for instance, it would be free TO YOU, but you also couldn't turn around and charge clients lots of money for what they know damned well you're doing for absolutely free. It's really an important concept to consider when you're making budgets pitches. As far as clarkandmichael is concerned, they lost me the moment it opened when they switched from one camera behind the counter to show him signing the papers, then to another camera behind him, then back to the camera behind the counter to show his face. for a scene of him doing nothing. and then they repeated that trick throughout. if you're going to fake something, at least fake it well. this kind of bullshit totally disrupts your emotional engagement with it and ability to suspend disbelief. I agree, as far as disruption of emotional engagement. When I first went to the page, I thought ok... This is quasi-interesting. The guy from the movie Superbad is doing a video blog about what he's trying to do next in the industry. Let's see what this is about Once I saw that his roommate was trying to deliver comedy lines, I understood that what I was watching was a scripted show. There's nothing wrong with that, but it becomes a lame version of Curb Your Enthusiasm instead of something where you can believe in and root for the characters. and theirs, too, by the look of it - their 'natural' acting is way off and their timing is lousy. t. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv hahaha I assumed that what I was going to see was an established actor trying to help his homeboy out and do a show with him so his friend could get visibility. I don't watch enough recent television/film to know if the other guy's an actual actor, and if I hadn't seen Superbad on cable ONE TIME, I wouldn't have ever seen the main guy either. Once I saw that it was a two-camera shoot and that they were doing scenes with video cameras across the street from the action, etc, I was aware that this was a funded production. I certainly wasn't aware of that from the acting. If I want to watch a scripted series about being in the industry, I'll go watch Can We Do That http://www.veoh.com/channels/canwedothat. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com On 24-Aug-08, at 4:08 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: I agree with Dan, entirely. That was the point of my previous post on this topic. In case people watched that and thought it was something that was done in a bootstrapped fashion, please refer to the dual-camera shoot, complete with boom operator (read: a third crew member that's getting paid to be on-set to record the sound). According to http://forums.creativecow.net/archivepost/30/479679 from 2004, Non union sound mixers are getting $350 in most areas of the country, including flyover. Union adds about $100 to the cost. Boom operators get less, aproximately $250 for non union and $100 more for union. Most of the extra $100 goes to pension and hospital benefits. So just for the sound RECORDING part of that show, they were spending $350/day by *2004* union standards. Then you add the two camera operators, the two actors and whatever extras were in the different episodes, post production editing, sweetening and sound mixing. There's nothing to hate on about this situation. It's business as usual. I'm just saying that a lot of people read this group for basically DiY information. It's completely disingenuous to allow people to think that a couple of actors took a camera on their own, shot
[videoblogging] Re: Blitzkrieg VIdeo Release
Dude... That's Hilarious AND Brilliant! hahaha :) Hey baby... How's about a little pre-roll? ;) hahahaha Oh Man! Nice! :D .. um... Make sure you wear a condom, so there's no Revenue-Sharing! :D --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely: Pre-roll, overlay, post-roll? That's how I'm going to describe it to my wife from now on, anyway. On 21-Aug-08, at 5:00 PM, ractalfece wrote: tension, climax, post-roll? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: tension, climax, relief? On 21-Aug-08, at 2:28 PM, Brook Hinton wrote: I cannot resist. Mr. Street, what are the two or more emotions that French Maid TV seeks to move through emotionally compelling content? On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Tim Street tim@ wrote: French Maid TV has 8 How To videos that usually get between 1 to 5 million views per video. The trick is to build emotionally compelling content that moves two of more emotions have spectacle... and story if you can work it in. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV tim@ tim%40frenchmaidtv.com Add French Maid TV to Your iTunes @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes http://1timstreet.com http://twitter.com/1timstreet On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:18 PM, jamezscript wrote: Has anybody had success producing a shit-load of videos and releasing them all at once? I know the Ask A Ninja Guy's did this... I'm finding it increasingly difficult to build an audience/brand with just a handful of videos. Thinking even if you've got something entertaining you need at least 20 vids to make a mark these days? Any thoughts? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: CBS videoblogs
Interesting (if you're into those kind of behind-the-scenes-ish shows), well done and EXPENSIVE. I watched episode 10. Towards the end, one of the actors throws this lamp and the camera spins to show where it landed and you can see the boom operator AND the second cameraman. So that's at least three crew members and two actors being paid for every minute they filmed that. Not to mention, that's the guy from Superbad, so he's obviously in whatever union. Also, pre-production, direction, editing, etc. I like the format, although internet-wise, I could have stood for that episode to have been THREE episodes because it's so slow, but if you can get people interested in the behind-the-scenes lives of your characters, I can see shows of this type being the next step in both the evolution of youtubeish I'm sitting in front of my webcam talking videos and the 'descent' of MSM into the web video space. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: has anyone seen... http://www.clarkandmichael.com/index.php Interesting because many of us have always imagined that younger Hollywood would not have a problem with being creative online. Seems that CBS is using Wordpress(I think) to create their different online shows. Anyone know the story behind it? Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Brian Conley Jeff Rae
BoingBoing reports that Brian Conley Jeff Rae were detained in Beijing yesterday. Digg link = http://peaurl.com/4U5Z BoingBoing link = http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/beijing-alive-in-bag.html Good Luck, fellaz. Safe return home! Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com
[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?
That's because previously, we didn't have a choice. If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to believe it. However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building with no flames coming from it and only smoke, and then I post that to the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable. Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually happen. So the problem is that there are checks and balances now. The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary. Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were detained in China YESTERDAY! That wasn't possible back in the day. There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible if they keep it up. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture, etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always a spin...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the people who were delivering the news, in whatever form. Now we have all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see, unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it. Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone awayand that's sad... Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Yes. I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants their information to be accepted and absorbed. This includes the commercials. I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing the video wanted to portray. For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits actual huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major city, they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to show. Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room floor. Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might hit the cutting room floor. I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City, surrounded by high-rise buildings. OR... I could stand inside the park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, and you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I filmed that. So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted to sell something to an audience. I'm saying that since it's humans that are selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by their perception of what they want it to portray. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a variety of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come backhopefully Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Nothing's believable, really. Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being spun most of the time for the sake of making some particular point. For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my friends and my acquaintances. Therefore, if you see the set of pics, you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because I didn't take pictures of everyone there. My goal wasn't to document the party, objectively. My goal was to document the good times I had and the people I had them with. So it's basically a spin. Same thing with news reporting. You can interview 20 people and have 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the final video has 5 people 'pro' and only
[videoblogging] Re: Looking for style-driven video editors
A new media website? :D Sounds rather headhunterish... not that there's anything wrong with that, haha. Perhaps a google search for Video Editor Resume would turn something up = http://www.google.com/search?hl=enfkt=1183fsdt=3946q=video+editor+resumebtnG=Google+Search Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sean McManus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A new media website in New York is looking for video editors to combine our content (interviews with experts and thought leaders) with contemporary/sophisticated music and images to create 1-2 minute videos. Some will be used for promotional purposes, others will be used to create knowledge-driven mini documentaries. Samples of your work and availability is requested for review. Please email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?
Nothing's believable, really. Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being spun most of the time for the sake of making some particular point. For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my friends and my acquaintances. Therefore, if you see the set of pics, you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because I didn't take pictures of everyone there. My goal wasn't to document the party, objectively. My goal was to document the good times I had and the people I had them with. So it's basically a spin. Same thing with news reporting. You can interview 20 people and have 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively. Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the person that created the media or was in charge of Executive Producing it and signing off on it before it goes out the door. http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-how-to-properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/ Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it also applies to video as well. I always think about criminal cases, when does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired results? This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality digital tech http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989 When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, N.Y., in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog Gawker, local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply fake, a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had been duped. The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, Beijing organizers admitted to using previously recorded footage and computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to enhance the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month before that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on front pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile added to the image�was outed within hours of the photograph's publication. With technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be, says John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press Photographers Association. Our credibility has been stretched in so many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith in us. He admits the past year hasn't been the best for photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the photojournalist to tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. Just like we trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're going to have to develop that same relationship with photographers, he says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not doctored photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts: for the rest of the article follow the link http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989 Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com
[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?
Yes. I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants their information to be accepted and absorbed. This includes the commercials. I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing the video wanted to portray. For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits actual huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major city, they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to show. Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room floor. Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might hit the cutting room floor. I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City, surrounded by high-rise buildings. OR... I could stand inside the park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, and you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I filmed that. So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted to sell something to an audience. I'm saying that since it's humans that are selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by their perception of what they want it to portray. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a variety of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come backhopefully Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Nothing's believable, really. Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being spun most of the time for the sake of making some particular point. For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my friends and my acquaintances. Therefore, if you see the set of pics, you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because I didn't take pictures of everyone there. My goal wasn't to document the party, objectively. My goal was to document the good times I had and the people I had them with. So it's basically a spin. Same thing with news reporting. You can interview 20 people and have 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively. Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the person that created the media or was in charge of Executive Producing it and signing off on it before it goes out the door. http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-how-to- properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/ Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it also applies to video as well. I always think about criminal cases, when does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired results? This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality digital tech http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989 When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, N.Y., in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog Gawker, local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply fake, a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had been duped. The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, Beijing organizers admitted to using previously recorded footage and computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to enhance the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month before that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on front
[videoblogging] Chuck Olsen in Valleywag
http://valleywag.com/5034971/did-robert-scoble-film-edwards-mistress-rielle-hunter or http://tinyurl.com/62rqsd ... Chuckumentary videographer Chuck Olsen, a contributor to Rocketboom, did catch Hunter in one of his videos of the Edwards campaign. Fast forward to 1:07 and you'll get a quick glimpse of Hunter, earning part of her $114,000 behind the camera... Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com
[videoblogging] Re: How to promote videos?
No problem, man. Good luck! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, hoclides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many thanks to Irina, M.J. Loheed, Bill Comack, Jamison and the Wreck and Salvage Crew! In the past 2 days, I've been sending weblinks to everyone I knew or could think of. One weird strategy I came up with, perhaps due to sleep deprivation, was to post ads at Gumtree.com. It's quite famous in London to find flats and they offer the possibility of a Youtube embedded video. So I left a few ads in the Entertainment section... I know there's an American counterpart called Craiglist.com but I haven't checked it yet. Let's see how that works! Once again lots of thanks for helping out this country bumpkin in promoting his work! Felipe --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jamisonmt jamisonmt@ wrote: Thanks for the mention Bill! We're always looking for interesting new series to review, so video creators please reach out anytime! jamison AT tilzy.tv -Jamison --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: yeah i would say tilzy.tv or newteevee.com are the two places that i take seriously the rest are just fluff and filler On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Try http://www.tilzy.tv/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, M.J. Loheed mjloheed@ wrote: Hey Felipe, I'm new video blogger and I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to create a reality series for the web and I'm having a difficult time locating good spots to mention my series, get a review, or even indulge a shameless plug. There's so much online video now that it seems difficult to locate one good clearinghouse of online video reviews. Especially as more viewers are migrating to the web on their lunch hour. MJ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, hoclides hoclides@ wrote: Hi guys! My name is Felipe Ferreira and I've been a member of this group for a few weeks now. I'm not a videoblogger per se but I do my share of video uploading. Basically I'm working on an Original Internet Animation Series called Temp Hero KID YOYO. The idea was to learn how to run a webshow from script to upload, doing 3d modelling, animation, songs, soundFX and editing on my own. I still have much to learn on these areas but they my progress on those is linear. However, promotion! There lies a dragon I can't seem to beat. Does any of you guys, veterans I may say, know a few places to promote an offbeat internet animation? Especially if it's non viral? My website is: www.kidyoyo.com Cheers! -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: i'll be qik'n the opening day tomorrow.
V. Cool! :D Good luck with the broadcast! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, noel hidalgo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from 09h00 on i'll be qik'n the day around opening day of the '08 olympics. http://qik.com/noneck and if anyone can tell a way to embed this on my site http://luckofseven.com - i'll give you a shout out. ;)
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Excellent points, Jeffrey. Agreed, across the board. Additionally, I've been saying for well over a year now that even IF the creation of online video becomes monetized, it's not going to be to the proper degree, because there is *NO*WAY* to prove demographics. If you can't prove demos, you can't tell an advertiser you're going to hit their target market to any degree where they should give you a lot of money for it. Without the money, you can't pay professionals or at least people who are GOOD at what they do to work on your project for the amount of time that it takes to make it good. People cut corners to make budgets (if there's a budget at all) and end up outputting slipshod work that doesn't inspire anyone with funding who technically understands what they're looking at to hire that person or group to represent THEIR interests on the internet. So it's a spiral, where the lack of production value makes companies NOT put money into online video, and because the money isn't here, there's no production value, because that requires the TIME of someone who knows what they're doing to concentrate on the work, which isn't affordable. Meanwhile, exactly what you've mentioned is what's been happening. Production teams are popping up out of nowhere with the exact same content that's been here in this group for ages, such as http://somethingtobedesired.com and http://galacticast.com and http://chasingmills.com, etc... except with the funding allocated to creating said content with production budgets AND advertising budgets. There's nothing wrong with that, but we need to realize that the landscape's drastically different now. Even if you look at YouTube, all of a sudden there are videos with little red flags in the corner, indicating some sort of advanced affiliation with YouTube. There's ALSO a check-box that allows you to filter YouTube results for ONLY THE VIDEOS with the little red flag in the corner. So, yes, everything's changing, and rapidly. The question has to be why are you posting videos online?. You might be posting for yourself or your friends or the audience of ten or to become popular or to advertise your business or to make money through revenue sharing or to become sponsored or bought out or hired to be the face of a show or to be the producer or editor on a show... Whatever it is, NOW is the time to figure out what your goals are and figure out how you're going to attempt to achieve that and how long you're willing to apply yourself to making that happen. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. First and foremost, Steve W. has it right � the key here is to be tolerant of each others' expression, which also includes people's beliefs when it comes to making money. As John's video clearly indicates, the world is tough enough to navigate without a nasty polemic that shuts down communication and has people leave the space. And for those who have been around long enough, we all know there have been many that sadly have left this space. What I don't see is this community pointing fingers at ourselves first when it comes to making our new media space a reality. People like myself have been saying over and over that time is of the essence. Two years ago, I said the marketers were discovering this space and were planning to commodify the living shit out of it in ways we can't imagine once the budgets are approved. That is exactly what has happened. In general, the marketers heard about it in '06 and the exploitation of the medium came into its own in '07, once the ledger-line planning that marketers had done the year before had been released. We had a limited time to come together and create a set of values before greater forces took over. In some ways we have succeeded (e.g. CC licenses, full disclosure) because there was agreement, and others we have failed because of varying opinions and degrees of conviction on certain issues. We need to own that as a group of individuals. The result is the result, and many ships have sailed. Regarding many issues, the complaints are useless now as the time of value and context creation on a greater scale has passed. Exposing crap such that people are looking at new ways of doing things is great, but complaining about crap through personal attacks does nothing but satisfy individuals. John's video, while technically brilliant, seems to barely even gloss over the fact that he made his own decisions here. We have all known from that the downside of YouTube's vast audience potential is scant revenue-sharing and horrific comments. We have known what models � no matter how dreadful and degrading to our dreams of a new media landscape � are doing well and how unfair and rather disgusting they are to some, if not most, people. I think it is rather unfair to hold others accountable for one's personal decisions or one's lack of viable
[videoblogging] Re: How to promote videos?
Try http://www.tilzy.tv/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, M.J. Loheed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Felipe, I'm new video blogger and I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to create a reality series for the web and I'm having a difficult time locating good spots to mention my series, get a review, or even indulge a shameless plug. There's so much online video now that it seems difficult to locate one good clearinghouse of online video reviews. Especially as more viewers are migrating to the web on their lunch hour. MJ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, hoclides hoclides@ wrote: Hi guys! My name is Felipe Ferreira and I've been a member of this group for a few weeks now. I'm not a videoblogger per se but I do my share of video uploading. Basically I'm working on an Original Internet Animation Series called Temp Hero KID YOYO. The idea was to learn how to run a webshow from script to upload, doing 3d modelling, animation, songs, soundFX and editing on my own. I still have much to learn on these areas but they my progress on those is linear. However, promotion! There lies a dragon I can't seem to beat. Does any of you guys, veterans I may say, know a few places to promote an offbeat internet animation? Especially if it's non viral? My website is: www.kidyoyo.com Cheers!
[videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
WooT!! :D Congrats to Drew, Kenyatta, Ellie, Jamie, Joanne Sarah! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10007032-36.html? tag=cnetfd.blogs.item Sony Pictures Television has signed a distribution deal with pioneering Web series Rocketboom, which has been producing a quirky daily newscast since 2004. Under the terms of the agreement--which reports pin in the seven figures--Sony will handle all distribution and ad sales, as well as use its Crackle.com player on the Rocketboom.com Web site. (Until this point, Rocketboom has used a YouTube embed on its home page.) It'll also see additional distribution on Sony's network, which includes the PlayStation 3 console. Sony bought Crackle, then known as Grouper, back in 2006. Created by entrepreneur Andrew Baron, Rocketboom rose to fame with actress Amanda Congdon as host, but she left the show on unfavorable terms in 2006 and has since struggled to find a new niche in online media. Congdon's replacement, Joanne Colan, is still at the helm. In a post on his blog, Baron explained why he chose to seek a distributor (a rarity in the Web video world) rather than raising the money through a venture round: he didn't want to sell out. Mentioning venture-funded video start-ups like Revision3 and Next New Networks, he wrote, While these networks have provided immense value for the growing transitioning space, they are all controlled now by venture capitalists which tend to have as their primary objective, a sale. Baron added that it often hasn't helped the quality. Aside from the hit shows which have spawned the networks, most of the other shows on these networks have not lived up to their predecessors, content-wise, and new shows are often canceled soon after they are launched. Indeed, Revision3 and Next New Networks have both seen new programs debut only to peter out after only a few episodes--something that a major TV network can handle, but which can be a serious wound for a video start-up. Instead of gaining capital to burn while continuing to build or seek an advertising solution, we now have one of the most prominent advertising solutions out there, Baron wrote, along with increased distribution, a road map for expansion and a guarantee that I believe is an unprecedented deal for this space. What he was saying, albeit obliquely, is that Rocketboom did need a leg up. As more and more early Web video shows have either faded away (Lonelygirl15 just ended its run, and The Burg's creators ended the project to collaborate on a new show backed by former Disney chief Michael Eisner) or acquired (Wallstrip was bought by CBS Interactive, and Revision3 now syndicates Wine Library and Epic Fu) remaining indie operations need to stay afloat. Sony can provide Rocketboom with better exposure as well as a more streamlined advertising operation. Baron is no stranger to shaking things up, having catalyzed one of the blogosphere's most navel-gazing debates when he briefly put his Twitter account up for sale on eBay.
[videoblogging] Re: Advice about setting up site with downloadable video
Depending on what you mean by available for download, host your files on http://blip.tv and embed the direct links on your site pages so people can download each format, mp4, Apple TV, iPod, 3gp, whatever. If you mean available for people to PAY YOU TO DOWNLOAD, you need a different solution. :) Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, caminofilm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying a new venture. I want to have my videos available for download on my website. So I am going to need about 5gb of hosting space. Most of my website viewers are from the USA, so I figure using a webhosting company in the US will mean cheaper bandwith and quicker downloads for US based customers. Can anyone see any problems that may arise with my new business model? For the whole thing to work, I'm going to need a heap of people buying my videos (which will be priced quite cheaply) With all this traffic and downloading from my site, is there anything I should watch out for? Is anyone doing a similar thing and if so, which hosting company are you using? Mark
[videoblogging] Re: who are the Green Video Bloggers?
http://zaproot.com/ Part of the NNN ViroPop network. http://www.viropop.com/blog Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Eric Rochow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'd be interested in who else out there is dealing with green issues as a videoblog, podcast, or web video show, whatever one calls it. if there is a list somewhere, please point me to it . thx, eric. www.realworldgreen.com ..
[videoblogging] Re: 12seconds.tv
This conversation actually came up ON Seesmic back in the day. There was a suggestion to limit responses to 90 seconds. This would have been intelligent for the reason that there were conversations that were branching out faster than viewers could consume the material. For instance... One person says I comb my dog's hair to the left, and then someone responds I comb it to the right. Meanwhile, a third person is replying to the first commment and leaving a ten-minute explanation about dog-grooming. By the time you watched the short video and the ten-minute video, there were already eight more responses on a couple of different tangents, some of which were ALSO 5 or 6 minutes long. On top of that, if you wanted to make your own response to someone's post, you missed out on all of the new posts that you then had to go back and watch, etc etc etc... Making a limitation of 90 seconds would have been a good idea if they were trying to emulate twitter and have people receive a limited amount of time to express themselves. 12 seconds is too short. It's like playing some cryptic game. 90 seconds was more of a you're babbling cutoff suggestion, not such a stringent restriction. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, Ive been on it a bit; theres a couple others on this list using it as well. I'm still having problems with the 12sec limit..sometimes I need 17secs to accomadate all my umms and uhhs. One thing good about it, is that it works and does what it says it does! by the time I get to the page, turn on my cam, etc.. I just want to do whatever im doing for the time it takes me to do it; which SHOULD only be 12secs, but rarely is. On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:36 AM, darbycoin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: has anyone else checked this out? i see that they're trying to take the success (if you will) of seesmic and combine it what that of twitter (its brevity). but are we really that ADD that we NEED to compress the time frame to 12 seconds? i think its novel but that's about it. as a culture - we're all about expedience - but in condensing and condensing the time frames in which we communicate are we changing how we communicate? personally - i've been watching a lot of longer format films/documentaries/etc lately because i've been feeling a need for something with depth/breadth/context/landscape. do you see value in 12seconds.tv? or is it just another niche thing. cheers scott -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Indecision - an interactive hyper-videoblog post
A Rupert's gone and DONE IT, NOW! :D ... Yes... You're Right!... I SHOULD be making videos! hahahahahahaha oh no. :) Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just used YouTube's new Annotations tool to create a little interactive videoblog story, created very quickly with my phone. Exciting that this kind of thing is possible so easily. You can only see it on YouTube - here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQg_LCq_T8fmt=18 and I blogged it here http://twittervlog.tv/?p=268 Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: HV20+Compressor+m4v = frame stuttering
Yeah man. It's a drag, but considering that you can buy at least *FOUR* HV20s for the price of one XHA1, it's clearly the way to go for the budget-conscious that are willing to deal with the extra hassle. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Eric Rochow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey thanks for all the info. what a pain. i'll stick with my XHA1 my Canon HV20, 2 months old, is now for sale. thx, eric.
[videoblogging] Re: HV20+Compressor+m4v = frame stuttering
You're absolutely right, Rupert... However, in Eric's situation, he bought the HV20 to be a b-roll camera for his Canon XHA1. The reason he has to shoot 24p with the HV20 is to match the footage from the XHA1. Otherwise, he'd be able to skip 24p and shoot 60i and not have to deal with any extra conversion, time or drive space. It's one of those pre-production decisions that kind of snowballs or cascades. Once you decide to shoot your shows in a certain way, you have to get equipment that matches those particular specs or change your show so that you can utilize the features that are common to your new and old equipment. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) I've only used a PAL HV20, but even with the US version, you don't *have* to shoot in Progressive, do you? It's just an option, isn't it? (And one that Canon has failed to implement properly - with no pulldown flags) So surely you can just shoot in the normal 60i mode without all this trouble and then add a film effect at the end? 2) I know the PAL version of the HV20 has a 25P option instead of 24P and I'm pretty sure that with 25P you don't have to go through this ridiculous circus. I don't see any reason why anyone should care whether they're shooting on PAL or NTSC for web use (or even for broadcast - you can export any res/format you like) - so perhaps if you *really* want to shoot in Progressive mode for whatever reason, it's a good idea to buy a European HV20 or HV30 from somewhere like Amazon.co.uk or Ebay. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. I don't have a deep technical knowledge. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22-Jul-08, at 7:43 AM, Eric Rochow wrote: hey thanks for all the info. what a pain. i'll stick with my XHA1 my Canon HV20, 2 months old, is now for sale. thx, eric. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: HV20+Compressor+m4v = frame stuttering and a 24p rant
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What they're thinking is they want you to buy an XHA1. lol, Absolutely. Spot-On. THAT'S the bottom line. :) The HV20 is one of those classic oops, we made a strictly non-pro item a little too good events (kind of like DV). It was never intended to become the low-cost hdv equivalent to a bolex for low-end pros or even a b-roll camera. But its image quality, sensor, low light performance, relatively (compared to Sony at least) acceptable mic preamp (you'd never know it from the horrid onboard mics) and, once you learn the tricks, manual capability made it the biggest camcorder-suitable-for-filmmakers bargain in history. Agreed. But since it was never intended to be a pro or even high end prosumer camera, the 24p feature is designed to be used as is - with pulldown added to fit a 29.97 frame rate, just like film telecine'd to video. The higher end cameras that shoot 24p have flags built it to the datastream that, with the right software, make it possible to remove pulldown on capture, leaving you with a 23.98 file. Using the HV20 professionally - and 24p is really not a consumer format - means tweaking and hacking and working around the limitations of a consumer camera that has enough positive qualities (not the least of which is price) to make that process worthwhile for many. And now the 24p rant, so move on if you aren't interested! 24p is also something of a universal format. It can be converted to 29.97 NTSC, to PAL, to film, to higher end digital formats, all without any motion degradation. In this regard it is somewhat unique - 25p/PAL is close, but while 24p has to be sped up to 25p for one of these format conversions (to PAL), 24p only has to have a speed change for its PAL conversion - the others can be handled via pulldown. 30p, on the other hand, cannot be transferred to PAL or to 24p HD formats without serious motion degradation or softening. Even 60i is better for these. 30p means you are NTSC or the Web, for good, forever. It's less hassle, but less flexible. But Rupert's right. If your just shooting for the web none of this matters much - except for 3rd party flash transcodes. Different places (blip, vimeo, youtube, etc) transcode to different frame rates, and this can cause all kinds of weirdness. A [EMAIL PROTECTED] file on vimeo HD is going to look really really weird. But a 24p file @24p, which will look great on vimeo hd, will look really weird in flash on blip (unless they've changed the way they do flash transcoding). Then there's the whole interlace artifact nightmare (at least in HD you can deinterlace for the web without much meaningful resolution loss - unless of course you're trying to serve hd as a final format.). I used 24p on the blip shows for two reasons, style of motion and low light performance. 24p on the HV20 gets you better performance in low light, and since I was shooting without lights, it made it easier for me to set up a decent-looking shot. Having done 20-some-odd episodes in 24p (except for the Grace Piper interview, where I shot 29.97 and in aperture mode in order to match the second camera I used for the video http://blip.tv/file/1044561/ ), my advice is to NOT SHOOT IN 24p unless it's necessary for your style. Loading 10 minutes of footage and then re-encoding that same 10 minutes of footage takes up time and drive space. As far as blip's flash conversion, I make my own FLVs with VisualHub and upload them to blip at the same time I load my mp4 file, so they look and move exactly the way I'd like them to. Again, as I mentioned in my response to Rupert's question, this is the kind of thing you want to figure out before you start shooting a show so you don't change the look/feel of it mid-stream. It all depends (with the HV20, anyway) if you're going for style or speed. If you have all the extra time and drive space, do your thing with 24p. :) Otherwise, shoot 1080/60i. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com I use 24p because of its flexibility, its efficiency for transcoding (progressive and fewer fps both make for better quality encodes at a given data rate), and because I like the slower motion signature. Heck, I like ONE fps in the right context, but never got used to 60i in any but the most pure content situations. Aesthetics is all about transformation of the real. 60i is much closer to the way our eye sees motion than slower motion signatures. Hence many of the aesthetic challenges of interlaced NTSC video. Brook _ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: HV20+Compressor+m4v = frame stuttering
Like Verdi said, you can't use 24p footage directly from the HV20 in Final Cut. Here's an AppleTV version of a 24p video from an HV20: http://blip.tv/file/get/Blipon-BlipOnBlip27Revision3ScamSchoolPopSirenTheDiggReel699.mp4 or http://peaurl.com/2Uqe The problem is that Final Cut Pro doesn't show you both fields... It only shows you one. So video that looks good while you're editing it looks like garbage when you output it. What you have to do is capture the video to FCP using the HDV easy setup. As soon as you capture it, find the video in your capture scratch folder and open it using Compressor and make/save a setting that does reverse telecine and has the frame rate 23.976. Make the codec Apple ProRes. Once that video gets encoded, import THAT video into FCP and work with that. Here are some Apple Docs that explain the process: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2410?viewlocale=en_US Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So here's the deal... The Canon HV20 really does shoot in 24P - it just does it in a weird way. The stuttering you are seeing is partly because that's what 24P looks like compared to 60i and partly because you have to do a reverse telecine to put the progressive frames back in order. Here's my shorthand notes on how to do it: Ok, it seems that FCP (at least v 5.1.4) doesn't support the 24p mode of this camera. There is a way to make it work but it's a pain in the ass and you probably don't want to do it unless you're a little crazy like me. Here's how it goes: I had to make my own easy setup in FCP that looks like this: Sequence Preset - take the HDV 1080p24 preset, duplicate it and change the compressor to Apple Intermediate Codec. Helps to give it a snappy name like AIC 1080p24 Capture Preset - HDV - Apple Intermediate Codec Device Control Preset - HDV Firewire Basic The crappy part (at least I think so - maybe not a problem for you) is that you can't log capture - it just lets you name your clip and it starts recording. So it's kind of like iMovie here. Then once you've captured your clips (if you stopped and started recording on the tape you must make a new clip), you have to open them in QT Pro and figure out the pulldown cadence, ie, interlaced frame, interlaced frame, progressive frame, progressive frame, progressive frame. There are these possibilities: p-p-i-i-p p-i-i-p-p i-p-p-p-i p-p-p-i-i i-i-p-p-p If you find that the clip is that last one, i-i-p-p-p, then you have to remove those beginning interlaced frames by using the arrow keys to move through those first frames till you hit the first progressive frame, then hit 'o' then apple x and then save. Now this clip is p-p-p-i-i. Ok then open up Cinema Tools. and open a clip. The go to the Clip menu and select Reverse Telecine. Here are the settings Capture Mode: F1-F2 File: New (smaller) Conform to: 24.0 Standard upper/lower (checked) Fields: p-p-i-i-p = AA p-i-i-p-p = BB i-p-p-p-i = BC p-p-p-i-i = CD Style 1 on the drop down. Click Ok to start the process. Then back in FCP import your new 24p clips and stick them on your new AIC 1080p24 sequence! Exporting once you're done editing Now for some reason exporting using quicktime conversion to apple tv or ipod get's all messed up. So instead, export as a QuickTime Movie (it can be a reference movie if you want) and then open that up with QuickTime Pro. Then export for Apple TV and iPod and you will be amazed. BTW, the Apple TV export will be at 1280 X 720! Verdi On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Eric Rochow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi all not sure what i'm doing wrong all of a sudden. i'm asking if any of you have suggested export - compressor settings for this setup. I'm shooting on a Canon HV20, in the '24P' mode ( which isn't really 24P ) editing in FInal cut 5.4 on a 1080 60i timeline exporting to Compressor using iPod setting and Apple TV setting and I keep getting this weird stutter - frame sync problem. you can watch a clip here: http://tinyurl.com/6oxo4g http://realworldgreen.com/RWG_sprinkler_timer.mp4 does anyone else shoot on an HV20 in the 24P/film mode and export to iTunes via FCP Compressor? thx, eric. Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://graymattergravy.com http://reportsfromthefuture.com http://michaelverdi.com
[videoblogging] Re: HV20+Compressor+m4v = frame stuttering
hahaha Thanks, Brook. I was like ??? :D Bill --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: oops just saw that Bill gave you the scoop on the compressor method, didn't mean to repeat! On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually if you have the canvas at 100% it does show you both fields. If you have FCP Studio 2 you don't have to use Cinematools to do the reverse pulldown - compressor's reverse telecine can do it more or less automagically (there's a how to on Apple's FCP site specific to the HV20. If you're on an earlier version, or even if you are on FCP6 and just prefer it, try the free JESdeinterlacer, which will reverse telecine to the codec of your choice while detecting scene breaks for you (for web work Apple Intermediate Codec isn't a bad choice - and you don't have prores as an option anyway if you're on FCP5.x) But... you CAN edit it without reverse telecine at 29.97. It's just like editing telecine'd film. I don't work with the HV20's footage this way but lots of folks do. The problem is that when you output to a non-interlaced format (or for a non-interlaced display) you'll either get combing (if the footage isn't deinterlaced first) or a repeated frame every 4 frames (if it is). One trick is to use either the flicker filter at maximum in FCP to blend the fields, or blend fields in Compressor (I can't recall if you do this through frame controls now or through the quicktime filters). This will sometimes give you double images on the pulldown frames but at 29.97 it's usually not objectionable, and the motion will be a little more natural. Frankly, I don't see much of a motion problem in your clip. Looking at it frame by frame it looks like you deinterlaced as you do have a repeating frame for each cadence cycle. Many DVD reissues of old TV stuff shot on film have this 2:2:2:4 cadence which is why those shots of Magnum PI running across the beach at Waimanalo look kinda funky if you are motion sensitive. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Start/Stop detect in Final Cut Pro
You're right. Apparently, the file uploaded to blip is a PDF. http://blip.tv/file/get/Reeltoreel-dVStartStopDetectInFinalCutPro304.pdf Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Halcyon Styn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What format is your video? I cannot view it. (But want to learn!) Thank you! -halcyon On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM, brogan_kerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A time consuming and often tedious part of the video editing process is logging and capturing individual editable clips in Final Cut Pro. Capturing the entire tape as one clip is easy, but that makes cutting the captured footage into smaller clips useful in editing difficult. But not if you use Final Cut Pro's Start/Stop Detect feature. I just figured this all out this week and I'm sure some of you all know about it already but its really useful so I put together a little tutorial on how to use it and thought I would share. http://blip.tv/file/1061203 Kerry -- -=H=- halcyon -= http://lifestudent.com =- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Who Uses V Cast?
hahaha Until the PSYCH, I was like FINALLY!!! SOMEONE THAT USES IT! :D It seems to be just another platform. The obvious limitations are 1) people that own compatible phones, and 2) people that are willing to pay the subscription fee for the limited amount of shows that they have. That's why I'm thinking the only draw they're going to have is exclusive content, because otherwise, people will just access the internet and watch what they want. Not meaning from Verizon phones, but from computers or whatever. I'm a fan of the whole mobile concept, but making a mobile walled garden doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless you have content that people are going to buy YOUR service and YOUR compatible phones and YOUR extra subscription services for. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mjcarrasquillo2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Bill! I use V-Cast, Ptt yeah right... I have Verizon but V-Cast is practically useless. Michael Carrasquillo http://www.michaelcarrasquillo.com http://www.thetrialsofbeingmike.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: I haven't been able to find anyone that has it. According to their list of V Cast compatible phones, http://shop.vzw.com/?all=u0i=1id=VCAST+Phonesmarket=655419+Allstate=ysummary=1 or http://tinyurl.com/6n9wfd, you can't get it on the iPhone OR the Blackberry series. The V Cast user FAQ is here = http://support.vzw.com/faqs/V%20CAST/faq.html. According to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_CAST, V CAST is a 3G EV-DO network created by Verizon Wireless to deliver audio, video, and entertainment content. The typical download speed is between 400 and 700 kilobits per second with burst speeds of up to 2 megabits per second. V CAST provides music downloads and streaming video clips, which can be saved to the phone or a removable memory card, though they cannot be read by other phones or computers, since they are heavily protected by digital rights management software based on Windows Media Video 9 and developed by PacketVideo. So, yeah, we know there are tons of Verizon Wireless customers, and I'm sure there are lots of people who bought phones that work with V Cast... but most people that I randomly ask don't even know what V Cast is. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz schlomo@ wrote: But the question I really want answered: Who the heck actually uses V-Cast? Enquiring minds want to know! On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Yeah, man. I saw that. The resurgence is due to Loren stepping outside of the Echo Chamber with his Verizon deal and exposing himself to people who don't give a damn about Social Media AT ALL, but DO CARE who companies that they patronize associate with... as well as what those people appear to stand for. http://www.lizburr.com/2008/07/better-late-than-never.php or http://peaurl.com/6rF6 Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Sull sulleleven@ wrote: which just came back to bite him a year later. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/07/1938-media-loses-verizon-deal-over-racism-charges/ 2007/8/3 Bill Cammack BillCammack@: Loren Feldman = Technigga http://1938media.blip.tv/file/326972/ -- sull.outputs.it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Sanyo Xacti HD1010 4MP MPEG4 High Definition 1080i/1080p Camcorder with 10x
I'm editing HD on a Macbook pro, I believe 2.3 gHz, 2 gig RAM. I have no problems editing single layers of 1440x1080/60i HDV coming from the Canon HV20. Also, no problems editing in 1280x720/24p Apple ProRes codec. Bogs if you start multiclipping 1080i footage, but you can lower frame quality and frame rate requirements and do ok with it. It's also good to have a MacBook Pro so you have the right video card to run Motion, which does a much better job at keying than FCP does. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice! I've been meaning to ask - who's editing HD, and how powerful does your computer have to be to be efficient? Can a MacBook Pro handle HD editing effectively? I'm wondering what the minimum spec is, and what people are actually using for fast render times, etc. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 10-Jul-08, at 9:39 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: Just saw this: Sanyo Xacti HD1010 4MP MPEG4 High Definition 1080i/1080p Camcorder with 10x Optical Zoom http://sanyodigital.com/product.aspx?v=22 Might be the one to get... I've been holding off on HD because I didn't want to have to render the video after copying to hard drive... This one saves video as MPEG-4 H.264. What's your workflow for editing HD video off of the HD1000... Is there a rendering process? I'm not on the current FCP. Let me know if that'll help... Your thoughts? Thanks! --Steve http://stevegarfield.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Who Uses V Cast?
I haven't been able to find anyone that has it. According to their list of V Cast compatible phones, http://shop.vzw.com/?all=u0i=1id=VCAST+Phonesmarket=655419+Allstate=ysummary=1 or http://tinyurl.com/6n9wfd, you can't get it on the iPhone OR the Blackberry series. The V Cast user FAQ is here = http://support.vzw.com/faqs/V%20CAST/faq.html. According to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_CAST, V CAST is a 3G EV-DO network created by Verizon Wireless to deliver audio, video, and entertainment content. The typical download speed is between 400 and 700 kilobits per second with burst speeds of up to 2 megabits per second. V CAST provides music downloads and streaming video clips, which can be saved to the phone or a removable memory card, though they cannot be read by other phones or computers, since they are heavily protected by digital rights management software based on Windows Media Video 9 and developed by PacketVideo. So, yeah, we know there are tons of Verizon Wireless customers, and I'm sure there are lots of people who bought phones that work with V Cast... but most people that I randomly ask don't even know what V Cast is. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the question I really want answered: Who the heck actually uses V-Cast? Enquiring minds want to know! On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, man. I saw that. The resurgence is due to Loren stepping outside of the Echo Chamber with his Verizon deal and exposing himself to people who don't give a damn about Social Media AT ALL, but DO CARE who companies that they patronize associate with... as well as what those people appear to stand for. http://www.lizburr.com/2008/07/better-late-than-never.php or http://peaurl.com/6rF6 Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Sull sulleleven@ wrote: which just came back to bite him a year later. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/07/1938-media-loses-verizon-deal-over-racism-charges/ 2007/8/3 Bill Cammack BillCammack@: Loren Feldman = Technigga http://1938media.blip.tv/file/326972/ -- sull.outputs.it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: VCast
Yeah, they seem to advertise it as Television, but on your phone, but even people who watch television have CABLE, which means they have tons of choices. I suppose they're relying on exclusive content to make people want to up the subscription fee. Dunno. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, CCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a verizon phone that is V Cast enabled but I NEVER use it. I don't know anyone with Verizon that does use it. Why I don't use it: I have no idea what it costs me to use, and I'm not willing to find out. No idea what content is there, so I am not going to waste my time 'browsing.' My Samsung U740 (I think) runs out of battery power relatively quickly. Media I DO use on my phone: Music I put on the tiny little 1 Gig card that goes in the phone. This is good for waiting in line to entertain the kids. They dance in elevators. The QWERTY keyboard for texting. Occasional video. Occasional photo. (again, I have no idea what this costs me to upload and Verizon has all this private site stuff. It's a ridiculous end-user-hater labrynth.) I suppose we could ask a few mobile natives (kids 15 and under) if they use it. It's pretty dead though. Verizon will have to wake up and unlock their phones for web access soon. That is the only viable option going forward. -Christine PurpleCar [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Loren Feldman = Technigga
Yeah, man. I saw that. The resurgence is due to Loren stepping outside of the Echo Chamber with his Verizon deal and exposing himself to people who don't give a damn about Social Media AT ALL, but DO CARE who companies that they patronize associate with... as well as what those people appear to stand for. http://www.lizburr.com/2008/07/better-late-than-never.php or http://peaurl.com/6rF6 Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: which just came back to bite him a year later. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/07/1938-media-loses-verizon-deal-over-racism-charges/ 2007/8/3 Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Loren Feldman = Technigga http://1938media.blip.tv/file/326972/ -- sull.outputs.it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Reasonably Priced Mini DV Camcorder...
Canon ZR900 - $218.95 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539205-REG/Canon_2487B001_ZR_900_MiniDV_Camcorder.html or http://tinyurl.com/2grezq I don't believe it gets any more reasonable than that. :) Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure this has been covered before, but... I'm looking to add a mini dv cam to our 'studio'. I want to use it to interface with my macs to save wear and tear on my GL2. My old sony PC5 is starting to grumble a bit. I need firewire, would prefer Audio/in out and that's about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: animated text
There are lots of ways to do that, but one is to have your video on the bottom layer, the white text on the layer above it, and colored text on the layer above that. Type over the white letters with the colored letters in the timing that you want people to sing. That way, it appears that the words are turning colored at the right time. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brian Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey guys, I'm making a video and wanted to know how to make karaoke text -not the bouncing ball but color solids that move through the text -any ideas? thanks. -- Brian Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-683-6027 taxiplasm.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: question regarding green screen and zooming effects
The way to zoom images and keep them sharp is to use high resolution images. Even if you zoom them, they're still larger than the video's frame size, so they look crisp. So basically, make sure that you're using images that are way larger than your final output video size. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just took a look at the video on a website with a lot of really nice zooming effects. I'm curious if there is a tutorial for doing this using any Mac-compatible software. The green screening is easy enough, and I'm guessing that he used a green or blue cyclorama to get a seamless background, which I found to be very cool. My main question is with regard to showing screen shots or video of pages from software like Photoshop and then zooming into them slowly, while keeping them sharp. Here is the site: http://www.trafficsecrets.com I found the info he provides pretty interesting as well. All the best, Andrew --- Andrew Darlow Editor, The Imaging Buffet http://www.imagingbuffet.com Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques: An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http:// www.inkjettips.com
[videoblogging] Re: McCain video: I hate bloggers
hahaha UH-O... I detect a remix! :D --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoa thanks so much! On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:50 PM, jarosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a resource on the web that has over 700 video of McCain from events he went from around the country...Town Halls, House Parties, small events and large. My favorite is the one where McCain says, I hate bloggers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wset9i4b0b4 Here's the archive: http://www.youtube.com/user/IssueAlliance -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: This is what I'm talking about
+1. Excellent basic tutorial, Bre! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bre Petis (OG videoblogger and Etsy.com guru) recently made a post about how to videoblog: http://www.imakethings.com/2008/06/19/getting-started-in-video-editing-and-publishing/ Probably nothing new for the experienced, but he does a good job walking through the whole process...and pointing out where to get good Creative Commons music. the basics are still important. Reading his post, I feel that we're able to get into the nuances of videoblogging as more people are more comfortable with the technology. maybe one day, all we'll be talking about is how to tell/record good stories. technology will disappear. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Decline in posts to this group.
No doubt. Pioneers in uncharted territory. Completely. When I got here in '06, a few years after the pioneers started doing what they were doing, the daily messages and the archives were absolutely invaluable for me as far as figuring out what to do, how to do it and how not to reinvent the wheel. While twitter was the obvious destruction of this list, this list is still the FOUNDATION for the relationships that people have carried to practically-real-time communication on status update sites. There's no reason to send a message to this list, hope somebody looks at it and then hope they send another email back when you can post a question to twitter, and one of your followers might respond to it within 5 minutes. This list is a MAJOR reason I knew who to follow on twitter in the first place. Anyway... Wanted to +1 what Schlomo was saying. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing about this list that will never change is that this was the place where the pioneers in uncharted territory would discuss videoblogging. The list may not have high educational content now, but the archives are filled with it. For those that can understand this: This list is like The Well. Very few people think about The Well anymore, but its place in history is undisputed. And there are sexier people on this list than that were on The Well in its early days:) -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: A Vlogger's Voice
You should throw that on Vimeo. They call that type of video a Lip-Dub, and have a bunch of them already: http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:lip%20dub Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the help of Linkin Park's Faint, I threw together this little video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVl_OuaLzV0 Original post and better video available here... http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2008/06/12/a-vloggers-voice/ So what's your latest project? Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The discussion about YouTube got me thinking. I did a little tour of some video sharing sites. I went to http://office.wreckandsalvage.com/ where they have a list of links to all the video sharing sites they upload to. A bunch of them are now defunct. All the predictable ones, like Grouper/Crackle, Studio6 and Dabble. Sharkle is still holding on somehow. I was amazed at how dull they all are. How limited the extra number of views they offer, how limited their sense of community networking. Above all, I was struck by the incredibly limited range of videos on most of these sites. Blip is really onto something by focussing on Shows in the way that it does now. At least it's not all bikini models and sport clips. I wondered what the point of them all was. There's no way that I'm going to waste my time uploading videos to any of them, for the sake of a few dozen views by people who don't care. It seems to me that the only reason these sites would interest videobloggers video artists is if they get videos in front of likeminded people with whom they can connect and communicate. So perhaps it's an ability to foster community that will make the difference between success and failure for these sites. I heard Vimeo has good community. And Viddler? Is that right? What about Daily Motion? Any others? Does anyone else have any good experiences on any other video sharing sites? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog I've seen that Vimeo has some focused groups, like the HV20 group or Vimeo HD or one specifically focused on comedy. Because of that, they have people that subscribe to certain topics or filmmakers and watch the videos and comment. So that ends up being some decent communities, even though it's still inside a walled garden to a degree, because it's 'only' the people inside Vimeo AND inside that particular group. What you're talking about is the reason that I post my videos to blip. I stick to self-promotion and iTunes... not that I have a ton of hits, haha. The point is that the extra locations weren't useful to me, for the reasons you stated. Basically, they tend to depend on some gimmick to make people want to post there, but in the long run, there's no actual traction. The traction comes from people bookmarking and RSSing your site, using the videos as a back end, so it really doesn't matter where the videos are parked, and you're not seeing much return from the community aspect of the sites as a destination. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Unfortunately, the way to deal with comments on YouTube is to turn them off. :) Unfortunately, as we've mentioned on this group several times, a lot of the so-called hits on youtube are from people that DON'T like the videos. If a video gets featured, there are a lot of hits from people that will click any image they see on the front page of a web site, especially if there's an attractive female on that thumbnail. Some people show up specifically to be griefers, so the only way around that is to have some system where the content creator has to specifically approve people to comment on their videos, or turn off commenting altogether. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that place. On the other hand though, the haters that have made a home for themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit and that means into the truly great communities out there that are virtually hate free. That would be a sad day. So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Bill and Lauren - great replies. I feel more attracted to Vimeo and Viddler, and less inclined to waste time elsewhere. The communities there are smaller, but way more dedicated. This lack of traction that you talk about, Bill, is a huge problem with Youtube. Youtube is still such a popular monopoly that I'm not sure they see how much of a problem it really is. If one of your videos gets popular, it just *does not* translate into views for your other videos. I have one video with 150,000 views because it's a video of a flashmob, and *none* of those viewers go on to watch any of my others. That's because most of the views come from people tuning in to the home page and clicking blindly on videos that are featured. Even if your video's not featured, if it becomes popular for some reason, it's THAT VIDEO that's popular, not YOU or your genre of videos. The analogy I'll draw is that I met someone at a party last week and she knew who I was, but I hadn't heard of her before. When I went home and googled her, I landed on an article she had written about a party that I had attended before I met her. I had read that article, but I had been sent there via probably a link from twitter. At the time I read it, I had no connection to her at all, so I went, read the information, didn't check any more of her posts and went about my business. That's how youtube works. People search for topics, like fighting, for instance. If you make a video about fighting, they'll watch it and then search for more videos about that. On top of that, IME, YouTube leaves open the section related videos and leaves the section more videos from this author closed. It's more likely that people are going to click on some picture they see and exit your stream than it is for them to open the more videos tab and THEN search through the pictures. This is also why people make sure their middle image is of a chick, preferably showing skin. They know that regardless of their topic, guys are going to click on that image to see what they can get from the chick... making their video look popular and getting them the potential to become featured and get all those extra hits. It's all a scam. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com They just don't do anything to promote the producer of the video. The idea of channels on Youtube is a joke, when you really look at it. And they serve the producer poorly with their picture quality. As IPTV progresses and people start to hook up their home entertainment systems to the internet to watch shows and movies, this will be Youtube's Achilles heel - unattractive to both producers, consumers and most importantly advertisers, who want and need that traction. And, as previously discussed, there's very little in the way of nice community and loyalty - especially when compared to the massive viewership. Idiots. Arrogant idiots. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 17-Jun-08, at 4:39 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: The discussion about YouTube got me thinking. I did a little tour of some video sharing sites. I went to http://office.wreckandsalvage.com/ where they have a list of links to all the video sharing sites they upload to. A bunch of them are now defunct. All the predictable ones, like Grouper/Crackle, Studio6 and Dabble. Sharkle is still holding on somehow. I was amazed at how dull they all are. How limited the extra number of views they offer, how limited their sense of community networking. Above all, I was struck by the incredibly limited range of videos on most of these sites. Blip is really onto something by focussing on Shows in the way that it does now. At least it's not all bikini models and sport clips. I wondered what the point of them all was. There's no way that I'm going to waste my time uploading videos to any of them, for the sake of a few dozen views by people who don't care. It seems to me that the only reason these sites would interest videobloggers video artists is if they get videos in front of likeminded people with whom they can connect and communicate. So perhaps it's an ability to foster community that will make the difference between success and failure for these sites. I heard Vimeo has good community. And Viddler? Is that right? What about Daily Motion? Any others? Does anyone else have any good experiences on any other video sharing sites? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog I've seen that Vimeo has some focused groups, like the HV20 group or Vimeo HD or one specifically focused on comedy. Because of that, they have people that subscribe to certain topics or filmmakers and watch the videos and comment. So that ends up being
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
Nice find, Mike. :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mjcarrasquillo2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone, Caleb, great to meet you, digitally... Instead of memorizing everything and just get things done, you could grab the aspect ratio calculator... http://www.wideopendoors.net/design/aspect_ratio_calculator.html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb J. Clark calebjc@ wrote: Does does anyone have online resource for the math, or dimensions that will scale correctly so I can pick any size I want and change it. And is putting letter box into normal res smarter? etc. I've been feeling like such an idiot working with getting my new Canon 1920x1080 footage to the web (YouTube, Blip) without messing up the aspect ratio. Using FCE 4, the drop down compression is confusing...There's 16x9 and 4x3 settings for 720x480, etc. Then there's the preserve aspect ratio options, and more often then not my video ends up squeezed. I just came up this post here, and I'm trying it. http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/distributing-your-videos-on-the-web/ Heath Says: November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm Thanks, Arin, you rock. If anyone is using ***HDV 1080i/p footage, your frame size in QuickTime Pro/Conversion can be 600 x 338.*** This was given to me by Jon Fordham, who shot parts of Four Eyed Monsters and my feature film 9:04 AM. It's been GREAT!
[videoblogging] Re: W.O. Thompson's Passing
Dan, Sorry to hear that. I remember W.O. from Late Nite Mash. Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, danielmcvicar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I received an email message from W.O. Thompson's email with this message: CELEBRATION OF LIFE FOR W.O. THOMPSON will be held at The Q Spot, 221 W. Cherokee, in Enid, Sat. 6/21/08, from 1 to 4 pm. There will be live music refreshments. Everyone who knew W.O. is welcome to come help celebrate his life. Also known as WO7 from Oblivion Oklahoma, W.O. was an enthusiastic contributor, and somebody who really touched me by collaborating with some great animation when I was putting together LateNiteMash. I know that he reached out to a lot of people as well. His talent is missed, his kindness is remembered, and it reminds me of how happy I have been to be involved with this group of videoblogging adventurers. Thanks everyone. Daniel McVicar
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
Hey Caleb. Long time no see. :) the dimensions are 16x9, across the board: 1920x1080 1280x720 960x540 720x400 600x360 480x270 If you're using AppleTV, the dimensions are dependent upon your frame rate: 1280x720 @ 24fps 960x540 @ 30fps Cheers! Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does does anyone have online resource for the math, or dimensions that will scale correctly so I can pick any size I want and change it. And is putting letter box into normal res smarter? etc. I've been feeling like such an idiot working with getting my new Canon 1920x1080 footage to the web (YouTube, Blip) without messing up the aspect ratio. Using FCE 4, the drop down compression is confusing...There's 16x9 and 4x3 settings for 720x480, etc. Then there's the preserve aspect ratio options, and more often then not my video ends up squeezed. I just came up this post here, and I'm trying it. http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/distributing-your-videos-on-the-web/ Heath Says: November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm Thanks, Arin, you rock. If anyone is using ***HDV 1080i/p footage, your frame size in QuickTime Pro/Conversion can be 600 x 338.*** This was given to me by Jon Fordham, who shot parts of Four Eyed Monsters and my feature film 9:04 AM. It's been GREAT!
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Caleb. Long time no see. :) the dimensions are 16x9, across the board: 1920x1080 1280x720 960x540 720x400 error. This should read 640x360. 600x360 480x270 If you're using AppleTV, the dimensions are dependent upon your frame rate: 1280x720 @ 24fps 960x540 @ 30fps Cheers! Bill http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb J. Clark calebjc@ wrote: Does does anyone have online resource for the math, or dimensions that will scale correctly so I can pick any size I want and change it. And is putting letter box into normal res smarter? etc. I've been feeling like such an idiot working with getting my new Canon 1920x1080 footage to the web (YouTube, Blip) without messing up the aspect ratio. Using FCE 4, the drop down compression is confusing...There's 16x9 and 4x3 settings for 720x480, etc. Then there's the preserve aspect ratio options, and more often then not my video ends up squeezed. I just came up this post here, and I'm trying it. http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/distributing-your-videos-on-the-web/ Heath Says: November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm Thanks, Arin, you rock. If anyone is using ***HDV 1080i/p footage, your frame size in QuickTime Pro/Conversion can be 600 x 338.*** This was given to me by Jon Fordham, who shot parts of Four Eyed Monsters and my feature film 9:04 AM. It's been GREAT!
[videoblogging] Re: Canon HV-20 24p-60i issue
Kary has the basics down. I use a Canon HV20 and shoot in 24P. It's not actually 24 progressive frames per second. It records 24 progressive frames across 60 interlaced frames. What this means is you have to do a double process. The first one is to import the video as HDV into Final Cut. Once you do that, you use reveal in finder to find the clips in your capture scratch bin, then you import those files into Compressor. There are some settings you have to make... something like setting deinterlacing to reverse telecine and setting the fps to 23.978 and probably some other stuff, but that's outlined in the Apple docs. You only have to do it once, and then you use that preset for every clip you import. As you can tell, time-wise, that's a drag. Another thing you can do, assuming you're not delivering in 1080 is set up your Compressor preset to translate the footage to 1280x720. Oh, that's another thing. Translate the HDV footage into Apple ProRes. Anyway, once all that's done, the video's great. :) Once you set it up in Compressor, the process takes a long time, but your final result's fantastic for $700. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apple has some info on the HV-20/Final Cut workflow to get 1080p24 footage into the editor. Short version is you have to import it as 60i and then reverse telecine each clip with either Cinema Tools or Compressor. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306389 Good luck, -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com http://goodcommitment.tv On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM, eric gunnar rochow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hey everyone, i recently bought a Canon HV-20 to complement my larger camera, the Canon XHA1. i usually shoot in 24P mode with the XHA1. i was under the impression that the HV-20 could shoot in 24P, but i now learn that it shoots in a 'sort-of 24P' mode that is then 'wrapped' in a 60i format. when you import the footage into FInal Cut, it is a 60i file. i shoot in progressive ( P format ) specifically for the web, and now it looks like i will have to de-interlace this HV-20 footage before uploading to Blip, etc. Does anyone have any experience with this or suggestions? i just learned that Canon's new camera , the HV-30 shoots in true 30P, so i may be selling this one and getting the new model , as i really want the progressive format. thx, eric. www.gree-house.tv Gardenfork and Real World Green [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Question about hosting your own video's
Also, make sure you inform your friend that FLVs can be pulled off of his page anyway. Not to mention, with screen capture programs, all you have to do is press record on the program and press play on the video. So... He might want to make sure he posts his videos with passwords and only gives those passwords to people that he wants to view the videos. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a pretty similar process. If he's using wordpress, he could install vPIP and use that to embed the videos (the URL would come from his server instead of blip). Another option is the Flash Video Plugin http://www.mac-dev.net/blog/download-flash-video-player-plugin-for-wordpress/, it's designed to work with the Jeroen Wijering Media Player http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Media_Player. - Verdi On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a friend who wants to put video of his kids up on his site using a flash player, but he wants to host the video's locally on his own site. I have talked with him about blip, etc but because of the age of his kids, he is a bit hesitaint..(I know, he is more concerned with the fact people could download the vid, more than people being able to view the video's) anyway..I was hoping someone (s) here had some experience in this matter and would be willing to share some tips. He is using wordpress hosted on his site and wants to be able to embed his flash video's (maybe other types as well) onto his site. Since I use Blip, and have never done the self hosting route, I said I would ask around. Thanks in advance for your help Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://graymattergravy.com http://reportsfromthefuture.com http://michaelverdi.com
[videoblogging] Re: Working with multiple cameras
100,000 gazillion percent agreed with Richard on letting the cameras run. :D Tape is cheap compared to hours of an editor sitting there figuring out which section of your footage matches which other section. Even if you're doing it yourself, it's a waste of your time, where you could be working on other projects or making THIS project better. Leave the cameras running. If you need to, stand somewhere where both cameras can see you and clap once so that both cameras get the sound and both cameras see your hands come together. When it's time to edit, load both 1-hour tapes fully to your drives, line up or multiclip the claps and work from there. The time savings are well worth it. It's not exactly on-topic, but here's a two-camera shoot I did with Bre Pettis http://brepettis.com and Justin Day http://blip.tv = http://billcammack.com/2008/05/06/blip-on-blip-24-bre-pettis-making-internet-video/ Same principle. Start the cameras, let them roll, drop all the unwanted footage on the cutting room floor. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: J. Rhett Aultman (snip) So, now I have two camcorders, and this means that, light conditions permitting, I'm doing more multiple-camera stuff. I just got done stitching together most of the footage from my first major multi-camera piece, and I've been noticing how much of my time goes syncing up the two cameras. Picking the right camera at the right time? That's easy. But every clip must by synced for both cameras before I can do that. I'm lucky that this is a sporting event with a lot of referee whistles, so I can use that to get two shots in sync, but it's still fairly tedious and time consuming. I'm curious...is there a better way to be doing this? I realize now why it's so much easier to run all the cameras to a common control room and have a director calling out the camera to switch to. Another technique is to start both cameras .. and LET THEM BOTH RUN .. until either the tape runs out or the event is over. That way you sync up once, at the beginning, and then it should be fine for the whole tape. Depending on the type of shoot you may end up throwing away (editing out) a LOT of footage .. but it is a valid technique. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and Brightcove
As Tim said, music cue sheets are used in broadcast television. The shows have to document whose music they used as well as how long the clip is that they used. So you would put something like: Artist's Name DVD Title Track Number/Name Amount Used (seconds, minutes...) It's also possible that start time in your final video is marked down, because each instance of the use of music has to be documented. 30 seconds of this track, starting 2:15 into the program. 25 seconds from a different track from the same CD, starting 4:09 in A lot of times, instead of the artist's name, there's the Library or Catalogue name. You have companies that create music libraries and license them to companies for their use for a certain period of time, so marking down where you got your music from makes sure you're covered if someone tries to say you didn't pay for it. Also, music cue sheets are good in environments where you're outputting a lot of videos using the same libraries. If you have two producers working on the same series, they can avoid using the same music in back-to-back episodes, for instance. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awesome give-back Gena. Thank you! Rox On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just catching up on this thread. I have never heard of music cue sheets before. I generally use public domain or creative commons type music. I usually just print a copy of the place where I got the music. I'm planning a new project and it might be a good idea to start using these. This is just a quick sweep to get me up to speed. Use what you like and pass it on... BMI information on Music Cue Sheets http://www.bmi.com/career/entry/533132 Royalty Free TV info on Cue Sheets http://www.royalty-free.tv/rftv/cuesheets.htm Sample ASCAP Cue Sheet (PDF) http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/cue_sheet_corner/pdf/SampleCueSheet.pdf Spreadsheet Cue Sheet http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/production/docs/musiccuesheet.xls Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Tim Street tim@ wrote: Every time I have produced a TV Show or TV promo we fill out music cue sheets that list the composer, the publisher and the music company. We then file them with the TV Network and the TV Network then files those papers with the music licensing company that we got the music from in the first place. I expect that all of us online video producers will have to do something similar in the next few years. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Add French Maid TV to Your iTunes @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes http://1timstreet.com http://twitter.com/1timstreet On May 29, 2008, at 7:11 AM, Ron Watson wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if Brightcove was using this as an excuse to get rid of a small content provider. It seems as if their entire business model changed in late '07. How long have you been with Brightcove and would you consider yourself a 'small' content provider. Cheers, Ron Watson On May 28, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Roxanne Darling wrote: Sheila - You are the best at sharing your experiences. I think this is overly extreme, and yes, very few would make it through their entire compliance process. We don't use Brightcove; this is a good reason not to. Not sure if anyone from their company is on the list; maybe they are listening? Aloha, Rox On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Brian Richardson - WhatTheCast? wtc@ wrote: I think Brightcove's response to your evidence is a sign to stop using them ... If their auditor can't accept the information from the music publisher, then their audit process is flawed. Any artist with a publisher lets the publisher handle licensing, and Brightcove should know this. On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:03 pm, Sheila English wrote: I wanted to know if anyone else has had a similar experience with Brightcove or any other hosting site. A Brightcove rep contacted me to say they would be pulling down one of my videos due to copyright infringement. Since I legally license or create everything I use, I knew there was a mistake. He said that Brightcove now hires a third party auditor to review user content for copyright violations and terms of service violations. Their third party auditor identified the music in my video as copyrighted material. I had 5 days to respond. I responded by sending my official license for the copyright of the song, which I paid for and the receipt for. They said they couldn't take my receipt
[videoblogging] Re: Copyright and Brightcove
+1. It's not worth it to have to wonder WHETHER your next episode is going to be accepted or rejected. Find another company with similar functionality that you like and repost or move your materials there. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sheila - You are the best at sharing your experiences. I think this is overly extreme, and yes, very few would make it through their entire compliance process. We don't use Brightcove; this is a good reason not to. Not sure if anyone from their company is on the list; maybe they are listening? Aloha, Rox On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Brian Richardson - WhatTheCast? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Brightcove's response to your evidence is a sign to stop using them ... If their auditor can't accept the information from the music publisher, then their audit process is flawed. Any artist with a publisher lets the publisher handle licensing, and Brightcove should know this. On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:03 pm, Sheila English wrote: I wanted to know if anyone else has had a similar experience with Brightcove or any other hosting site. A Brightcove rep contacted me to say they would be pulling down one of my videos due to copyright infringement. Since I legally license or create everything I use, I knew there was a mistake. He said that Brightcove now hires a third party auditor to review user content for copyright violations and terms of service violations. Their third party auditor identified the music in my video as copyrighted material. I had 5 days to respond. I responded by sending my official license for the copyright of the song, which I paid for and the receipt for. They said they couldn't take my receipt or the copy of the license given to me when I purchased the license for the use of the song. So I had to involve the company I purchased the music from. That company went through the trouble of verifying the license to Brightcove. Then Brightcove said that's not good enough. Now I have to have the copyright holder, the person who created the music, contact them. And, that person had to use the official Brightcove paperwork, fill it out, send it in, or my video would be taken down. I don't know about any of you, but hunting down the musician, getting him/her/them to fill out an official form for you and submit it seems a bit overkill to me. I understand the copyright issue. I do. But, what other difficulties will this kind of strict auditing and process cause content creators? Next will it be my stock footage and I'll have to find the camera operator? Do you see this as the future of creating original content? Because this makes it terribly hard on the individuals or small companies. Or maybe I'm just a big whiny, baby and everyone else deals with this as a standard part of doing business? Sheila Yahoo! Groups Links Brian Richardson - http://whatthecast.com - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://www.3chip.com -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: need video transcription services
You could try http://soundwriters.com/ and speak to Emilio Mahomar. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...and I have money to pay for it. -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan living travelling in Italy (and other Countries Beginning with I) www.beginningwithi.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Easy implement pay-per-download?
I don't have experience in that area, but I'd be interested in any stats you might be able to pull from this 'experiment', such as whether you could tell how much of your free material was being viewed compared to your PPV stuff and whether people who viewed certain clips were more likely to pay to see more. I also wonder about the challenges of making content compelling enough for people to want to pay for it. I don't mean YOU... I mean anyone, in general. Such as, making of videos or outtakes or even interviews with the cast/crew/whatever. The way DVD extras work on actual DVDs is that they're incentive to buy the DVD after you've already seen the movie in the theater. The extras are thrown in FREE, not something that people pay for. It's more like IF you pay for the DVD, you get these free episodes. So, yeah... Good luck with your project. Should be interesting. :D Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm thinking of setting up part of my site with DVD-style extras... outtakes, behind the scene footage, etc. Are there any easy systems out there for implementing either pay-per-download clips or some kind of gated members area? Keeping in mind that, beyond cutting and pasting HTML, I have NO coding skills whatsoever... (I miss BitPass.) Thanks, Chris Burdick http://www.myspace.com/necropol http://penelopespantyhose.com
[videoblogging] Re: virtual interviews workflow/tech advice?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The large challenge this type of endeavor presents is getting interview subjects into the best audio video gear and software possible. A difficult-to-control issue unless you have one or two packages of web cams and microphones you can ship around. Even then, there's the software and setup issue. You gotta have mac and PC capable of each. That is, unless you ship a pre-configured computer along with the cam and mic. The way I imagined this happening was to be willing to sacrifice consistency and quality. Agreed. You have to get it how you get it. The only way around that is, like Jan said, to ship identical cameras/mics/tripods/LIGHTS around the country, AND have someone who's knowledgeable about setting them up on-location to make sure you're getting the best quality. As we've been finding out over the last couple of months, quality costs money. There's no way around it. Either the professionals are expensive, or the equipment's expensive. Other than that, you get what you can, when you can, in the quality you can, and consistency is completely out the window. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com In this case, you are able to deal with what ever hard and software the subjects bring to the table. The interviewer / producer will have to be familiar with a wide range of possibilities, how to 'read' subjects' tech savvy-ness, and how to make the best use of even unfamiliar setups. All this takes time to test, etc., and a willingness on the part of interview subjects to install new hard and software, etc. Presumably your subjects are somewhat geek friendly. If not, then a local geek-friendly videoblogger contact to personally set it up on your behalf might be a choice. From what population do you wish to draw? Are they technical or grandmas who have only ever used email? Jan On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the jing project could be good here as well. http://www.jingproject.com/ 2008/5/13 Lauren Galanter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hey Guys, I've got a project at work kicking around. We're looking into doing virtual webcam interviews and I've been charged with recommending the tech/workflow. So far I'm thinking to use iMovie's record-from-webcam feature to record just the iChat video, and simultaneously run Snapz Pro (or iShowU) to capture the screen + video in case we want that. Have heard that SnpazPro files don't play nice with FCP though, is that true? Thinking the built-in webcam on the MBP isn't good enough quality for what we want...any recommendations for external webcams? Also wondering if anyone knows of good USB lav mics so we can get good audio straight into the computer as well. Basically, to anyone who's done virtual interviews or similar, I'm looking for any workflow/tech recs you can pass my way. Thanks everyone! -Lauren -- Lauren Galanter www.laurengalanter.com www.linkedin.com/in/laureng Skype: lgalanter AIM: aistalas 610-761-4435 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Jan McLaughlin Production Sound Mixer air = 862-571-5334 aim = janofsound skype = janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Looking for comments on Canon GL-2
That's really good looking video. Also, GeekBrief is shot using that camera: http://www.geekbrief.tv/about/our-setup Very crisp, vivid video. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Scott Parent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harold, Yes, the XH-A1 was used to shoot that piece. However, Iwasn't happy with the lighting. A better example of the camera with better lighting is all of the pieces on this site: http://pod.sbiff.org/ All were shot with the XH-A1 -Scott On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Scott, Is the Canon XH-A1 the only camera you're using right now? Is the following video entirely recorded with it? http://americancliche.net/2008/05/10/actv-8/ Thanks for letting me know, Harold --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Scott Parent theamericancliche@ wrote: Hi Richard, I think the GL2 is a solid choice. I have a Canon XH-A1 and I love it. -- --- American Cliche http://www.americancliche.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Newspaper scan effect and Map scan effect
I agree. Save yourself the trouble and the extra rendering of every single frame with an effect on it. Make an image with the highlights already created and use that for your panscan. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can highlight the sections beforehand in an image editor like Photoshop, or Aviary or another free image editor if you don't have Photoshop; save the image as a highest-quality jpeg; then use After Effects to pan and zoom across the sections. Google ken burns effect for tutorials and descriptions of how to create the pan-and-zoom effect. -- *Adam Quirk* / Producer, Wreck Salvage LLC / [EMAIL PROTECTED] /+1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM, travisdmathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, Does anybody have any suggestions or tutorials to point me toward re creating a zoom and scan across a newspaper effect where a specific part of the paper is highlighted? I'm open to various ways of conveying the same idea, I just don't want it to look cheesy or cheap. I also have a vector map of the US that Im going to alter before dumping into FCP. I'm concerned about it looking bitmapped once placed into FCP. any suggestions or alt ways of saving it to avoid that? At my disposal: FCP/Motion/After Effects thanks so much for any input you might have! Travis Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Solid-state camera recommendation
I encountered this just the other day. In preparing for a project, I talked to someone bringing a second camera, who told me they were going to shoot on tape. I knew how long the final video was going to be, so I was counting on, let's say, four times that much space for the raw footage to take up on my MacBook Pro internal drive. Unfortunately, even though the video looked sweet from the camera they brought, the footage was recorded to SD card and I had to use Log Transfer to import it into FCP6. Like Rupert mentions, this resulted in INSANELY LARGE file sizes that I wasn't prepared for, which were also a BEAST to edit with, as far as not wanting to play smoothly in my timeline on a 2.33 GHz Core Duo MBP with 2 gig of ram. Fortunately for me, I was able to borrow an external drive at the client site, because the transferred AVCHD had taken up all the space I had allotted for DV or HDV footage. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Apple Apps all have means to ingest AVCHD footage. Not quite true. The *newest* Apple apps support AVCHD, but with limitations. The terrible (in my view) new iMovie 08, for instance supports it, but not the better iMovie 6. If you have an older version of iMovie or FCP, you're stuck. But then if you have an older Mac, you're stuck, too. Quick google told me that FCP 6 (the latest version) initially didn't allow AVCHD import, and then was updated last summer to allow it, but with big limitations - only on a Mac Pro and not natively: it transcodes to other codecs that use 10 times more space than native AVCHD. For PCs, Sony Vegas does support AVCHD - and I like Vegas a lot. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Polack ottorabbit@ wrote: Panasonic also has a hybrid camera - http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Camcorders/Hi-Def-Camcorders/model.HDC-HS9_11002_7005702 Check respective NLE software sites for AVCHD workflow info.
[videoblogging] Re: Video contest: $25,000 top prize! Enough for you and your favourite charity.
Entertaining. http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/shareyourpassion/viewallsubmissions.aspx?vidId=d038ef22-1ff7-4e66-9c3c-acdb0cbdb750 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hah! :D Thanks, Irina. But it should have been so much better. The deadline was 5am GMT last Monday morning and I remembered at 1am, just as I was finising packing up to emigrate. So I shot it at 2am in my empty house and went back to my mother-in-law's house to cut it on her PC at 4am, then ran out of time and had technical problems uploading. Finally got it in at 4.57am. It's one of the least viewed of all the 170 or so videos there. Draw your own conclusions... :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: loving rupert's submission http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/shareyourpassion/viewallsubmissions.aspx?vidId=d038ef22-1ff7-4e66-9c3c-acdb0cbdb750 On 5/4/08, Tony Armstrong cottager@ wrote: here: http://www.microsoft.ca/passion soon! t On May 4, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Irina wrote: where to we vote? :) On 5/4/08, Tony Armstrong cottager@ wrote: Hey Irna. We ended-up with lots of entries which we've narrowed down to 25 for voting. We'll see how the voting goesÂ… thanks for asking! T On May 4, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Irina wrote: so how are things going tony are you getting many more entries? i agree with rupert views and votes are super easy to game but i suppose another way to determine a winner is really hard :) On 4/21/08, Tony Armstrong cottager@ wrote: Hey friendly vloggers, We just launched a video contest at Microsoft Home Magazine. The top prize is $25,000 and so far only a handful of people have entered: 68 as of this evening. Did I mention the winner gets $25,000?. I watch your videos, I know what you are capable of. Share your passion! Here's the url to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzQeQIBWfE You can enter here: http://www.microsoft.ca/passion Please pass the word around! Thanks Tony Armstrong -- http://geekentertainment.tv -- http://geekentertainment.tv -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Looking for video showing how network television works.
I don't know of a video that describes the situation, but the basics are here, in text: http://billcammack.com/2008/05/04/demographics-monetization/ Bill --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, michael_aivaliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know of any online video that gives a good overview of how the business of network television works? Describing advertising, demographics etc.? I know someone posted a link several months back on this but can't seem to track it down.
[videoblogging] Reggie Watts - Out Of Control (was Re: go to hell)
That was obviously mixed. It's still a good performance, but it's not what they want you to believe it is. If you'd like to see something actually done in that fashion, using a sampler, check out Reggie Watts = http://www.vimeo.com/134034 Out Of Control. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't know what possessed me to watch this since I normally only read about 1% of the videoblogging list, but I did. It's decently well done and it says live recording, but I HIGHLY doubt it. I think it's just a shooting technique using prerecorded music. For one thing it's a song from a recorded album. You could compare it to the one off the album and I bet it sounds exactly the same. The thing is I've seen this done many times for real in live concerts. A lot of modern folkies use the loop technique though it's usually a lot simpler. I'm trying to remember who. It was Cat Power, Joseph Arthur, Fiest or someone like that. Can't remember for sure. -Mike On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVky7hwuebU ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Sorry Josh Leo, blame goodbeershow
Absolutely. Agreed. :) A 5-year old baby with a gun can kill you. Quick and Deadly. We're talking *incentive*, not *ability* :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe one day, the gals can be responsible for war. wars aside it's safe to say that the female can be just as quick and deadly. On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really. Same title, different functionality. Like I said, this isn't the forum to discuss this, but guys are still responsible for war. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Sull sulleleven@ wrote: cross-gender, yo. the *alpha male* or *alpha female* is the individual in the community to whom the others follow and defer On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: LOL I know you hate it, Jan, and this isn't the forum to discuss it in, but that's how we're built. :) Leaders Followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: OT Hey fellas, why is the default male reaction to a new kid in the room to attack? Why do you have to know who the alpha is, and set up a confrontation in order to sort that out? Guys can be so stupid. Jan On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Coffey jimmycrackhead2000@ wrote: I just emailed Josh to say the same. He went after every critic. --- Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: josh, i love the way you walked on in and took them on. what a pro! On Apr 24, 2008, at 4:51 PM, John Coffey wrote: Sorry Josh, sent your Founders Brewery link to @goodbeershow.twitter and he ran with it to Beer Report. http://tinyurl.com/5f652f [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Yahoo! Groups Links -- Jan McLaughlin Production Sound Mixer air = 862-571-5334 aim = janofsound skype = janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Josh Jen sighting @ PodCampNYC!
Joshua Kinberg Jennifer Myronuk PodCampNYC April 25, 2008 http://www.flickr.com/photos/billcammack/2441534417/ Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com
[videoblogging] Re: Sorry Josh Leo, blame goodbeershow
Here's a list called Women as Warriors in History: 3500BC to the 20th Century, since y'all insist on focusing on trying to make the playing field even and not on answering Jan's initial question. :) http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html Bill --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: History might disagree with you there Bill, just off the top of my head I can think of the Queenand I am sure if I did a bit of digging I could come up with more than just a handfull, not to mention what has been lost to time that we never knew about But like you said, not the place ;) Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Not really. Same title, different functionality. Like I said, this isn't the forum to discuss this, but guys are still responsible for war. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull sulleleven@ wrote: cross-gender, yo. the *alpha male* or *alpha female* is the individual in the community to whom the others follow and defer On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: LOL I know you hate it, Jan, and this isn't the forum to discuss it in, but that's how we're built. :) Leaders Followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: OT Hey fellas, why is the default male reaction to a new kid in the room to attack? Why do you have to know who the alpha is, and set up a confrontation in order to sort that out? Guys can be so stupid. Jan On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Coffey jimmycrackhead2000@ wrote: I just emailed Josh to say the same. He went after every critic. --- Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: josh, i love the way you walked on in and took them on. what a pro! On Apr 24, 2008, at 4:51 PM, John Coffey wrote: Sorry Josh, sent your Founders Brewery link to @goodbeershow.twitter and he ran with it to Beer Report. http://tinyurl.com/5f652f [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Yahoo! Groups Links -- Jan McLaughlin Production Sound Mixer air = 862-571-5334 aim = janofsound skype = janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Sorry Josh Leo, blame goodbeershow
LOL I know you hate it, Jan, and this isn't the forum to discuss it in, but that's how we're built. :) Leaders Followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OT Hey fellas, why is the default male reaction to a new kid in the room to attack? Why do you have to know who the alpha is, and set up a confrontation in order to sort that out? Guys can be so stupid. Jan On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just emailed Josh to say the same. He went after every critic. --- Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: josh, i love the way you walked on in and took them on. what a pro! On Apr 24, 2008, at 4:51 PM, John Coffey wrote: Sorry Josh, sent your Founders Brewery link to @goodbeershow.twitter and he ran with it to Beer Report. http://tinyurl.com/5f652f [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Yahoo! Groups Links -- Jan McLaughlin Production Sound Mixer air = 862-571-5334 aim = janofsound skype = janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Sorry Josh Leo, blame goodbeershow
Not really. Same title, different functionality. Like I said, this isn't the forum to discuss this, but guys are still responsible for war. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cross-gender, yo. the *alpha male* or *alpha female* is the individual in the community to whom the others follow and defer On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL I know you hate it, Jan, and this isn't the forum to discuss it in, but that's how we're built. :) Leaders Followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: OT Hey fellas, why is the default male reaction to a new kid in the room to attack? Why do you have to know who the alpha is, and set up a confrontation in order to sort that out? Guys can be so stupid. Jan On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Coffey jimmycrackhead2000@ wrote: I just emailed Josh to say the same. He went after every critic. --- Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: josh, i love the way you walked on in and took them on. what a pro! On Apr 24, 2008, at 4:51 PM, John Coffey wrote: Sorry Josh, sent your Founders Brewery link to @goodbeershow.twitter and he ran with it to Beer Report. http://tinyurl.com/5f652f [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Yahoo! Groups Links -- Jan McLaughlin Production Sound Mixer air = 862-571-5334 aim = janofsound skype = janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: ASSplay Show Player
Nice work, Drew! :D --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drew Olanoff has released a nice show template that is open source and ready for use: http://www.getassplay.org/assplay.html And no, its not dirty. Go to the site it see what the name means:) Drew's website is here: http://www.drewolanoff.com/ -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: ASSplay Show Player
Drew Olanoff just told me that it was actually Adam Plante who made it. Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drew Olanoff has released a nice show template that is open source and ready for use: http://www.getassplay.org/assplay.html And no, its not dirty. Go to the site it see what the name means:) Drew's website is here: http://www.drewolanoff.com/ -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: jabbo and crabbo launching tonight
Congrats on the show launch! :D ~Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ok guys.. I mentioned last week that I would be launching a new live talk show tonight... now the truth is I'm not so much of a host type of gal, my passion for online video springs from my artistic passions, which lean towards scripted work, however when I was approached about creating a talk show I thought... well, while I am still in development of my next scripted series, what can I create that I am truly passionate about? The answer was easy. I am so inspired by web 2.0 technology and the way it provides even the least technical folk like me access to creativity I personally never could have dreamed of in the past. I'm all about taking all of these tools... even better when they are free because of my limited budget .. and bypassing the casting directors, the film festivals, the investors, the art galleries... and bringing the projects I care about directly to the world, and I would love to teach others about all the tools I have found, and to build a community of artists of all sorts that will support and aid one another in bringing our creative visions to the web. So... that is what The Jabbo and Crabbo Show is about. Also of interest to this group.. I am using camtwist to produce our show, its an amazing free program that turns my living room into a tv studio... I will be talking about it on the show tonight- if you aren't familiar with it I think you are going to be amazed at what it can do. I want this show to belong to the audience. I want to know what the community wants to talk about, I want to teach the community want they want to learn. I want the community to be actively involved in the chat room, and ultimately to come on the show and show their work, their inspirations, their tips.. I hope you'll stop by tonight at 9:15...http://www.synchronis.tv/ the-jabbo-and-crabbo-show/ join in the community... let us know what you want to see... and hey! keeping in mind that I am a producer/actor... NOT a film maker... you can check out our 1 minute promo to learn a little more about the show.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-4CyoLi1KM thanks guys!!! hope to see you tonight! best! Kathryn http://www.synchronis.tv On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Pat Cook wrote: Hi everyone: Just noticed this last night. It's kinda like BlogTV, only you can have SEVERAL people on in video AT ONCE. Not sure how this works in archive format though as I'd have to check it out, but it sounds promising. :) The only drawback is that you can't download the archive (Though I imagine it won't be long till some geek develops an application that WILL download LV-archived videos though), but you can embed it (Great if you are only doing Flash but bad if you're doing Quicktime MP4 though). But at least video is at least STARTING to catch up to what can already be done with Skype and audio podcasting. :) Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado PODCASTS - AS MY WORLD TURNS - Blogger Page - http:// asmyworldturnstv.blogspot.com/ BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/20453 AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http:// asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ PAT'S HEALTH MEDICAL WONDERS VIDEOCAST - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ YOUTUBE CHANNEL - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepcshow THE PAT COOK SHOW (Video Podcast) - Blogger Page - http://thepctvshow.blogspot.com/ - BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/19924 **COMING SOON** - PAT'S CLASSIC TV COMMERCIALS VIDEO PODCAST - http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod), http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash.blogspot.com/ (Flash) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FCP XDCAM EX Export problems - Interlacing???
Interlacing looks horrible because the two different fields that make up that frame have different information in them. The reason it looks good in FCP is that FCP is set up to only display single FIELDS at a time, not entire FRAMES at a time. This is why you can edit something in FCP and it looks great, and then when you output it, it looks like garbage. Trust what the video looks like in quicktime player, not FCP. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im aassuming that this is a normal interlacing issue and isnt some weird thing caused by your camera/software combination. The best solution depends on what sort of video you are trying to create, most importantly what resolution. A solution that should totally avoid the problem in the first place, is to use progressive modes on your camera. Have you tried 720p or 1080p if your camera offers such things? If you stil have the same problem with those modes then something very strange is going on! Before we go any further, its probably a good idea to confirm that the Sequence Preset, found under audio/video settings, matches the camera mode of your footage. If you want to lower the resolution of your footage, to put it on the web for example, then there is a quick fix. Export from FCP at half the resolution (so for 1080i footage use 960x540 as the export resolution). You will then have a file that has no interlacing, should look fine, and you can use quicktime or whatever to make the file even smaller res or whatever. If you want to keep it to the original high-def res, then you will need to deinterlace the footage during export from FCP. Using Compressor as the export option is probably the best bet. Im just trying this out now and will post a vague idea what settings to try to make this work, unless anybody can point out an existing guide? Alternatively there are seperate programs available that will deinterlace, such as JES Deinterlacer for OS X, but if at all possible its probably better to have it done as part of your main FCP export. If your target is something like DVD then there will be some other way to export from FCP that should eliminate any problems. This stuff is a pain when you first come across it but it shouldnt be too bad once you've got a solution that works. Deinterlacing will probably add to your export times however, so it probably is worth looking at the progressive modes on your camera and seeing if they meet your needs. Im a FCP and Compressor newbie so I hope someone corrects me if Ive got anything wrong. If you want me to talk any more detail then just let us know what format, res etc of footage you would like to be exporting. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jt_hanner xgobobeanx@ wrote: Hey everyone, I am having a problem with the sony xdcam and exporting- i found this link and it describes the same issues i am having. can anyone please advise?? thank you Jill http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6619758#6619758
[videoblogging] Re: convert swf to mov or mp4
I don't do anything with swf files, but I second visualhub as a converter. Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a mac and use visual hub http://www.visualhub.net love it... kathryn http://www.synchonis.tv On Apr 18, 2008, at 11:57 AM, danielmcvicar wrote: Hi Guys What is the best way to convert swf files to mov? Thx Daniel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Mike Hudack
Nice work on the interview. http://www.pathbreaker.tv Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devon White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone, I recently posted a video interview with Blip.tv's CEO, Mike Hudack. For those of you who haven't met him in person - he's charming, well-spoken and on-point. I thought this list might have a particular interest in seeing the interview. You can check it out at www.pathbreaker.tv. Here's to meta-media - a leader in the democratization of media on what it's like to do what he does. Enjoy. ~devon -- I crave your mouth, your voice, your hair. Silent and starving, I prowl through the streets. Bread does not nourish me, dawn disrupts me, all day I hunt for the liquid measure of your steps. I hunger for your sleek laugh, your hands the color of a savage harvest, hunger for the pale stones of your fingernails, I want to eat your skin like a whole almond. I want to eat the sunbeam flaring in your lovely body, the sovereign nose of your arrogant face, I want to eat the fleeting shade of your lashes, and I pace around hungry, sniffing the twilight, hunting for you, for your hot heart, like a puma in the barrens of Quitratue. - Pablo Neruda http://www.karenscape.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Studio Engineer Needed
LOL @ Beer Budget! :D Poor choice of words. You'd be surprised how much some of us can drink! ;) I'll take this oppornity to do like Mission Impossible and say Good Luck, Jim... Is Eddie Codel a Video Engineer? Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jlouderb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, it's Jim Louderback from Revision3. I've been lurking on this group for a while (thanks for all the great advice), but I figured I'd speak up on this. Revision3 is looking for a video engineer to manage, enhance and operate our state-of-the-art HD multi-camera streaming video studio. We're switched, have about 3,000 square feet of shooting space, a green screen, etc. We need someone who wants to chart the course of what a videoblogging/streaming studio should look be, on a beer budget. Let me know if you are interested. And if I've offended the group with this post, I apologize in advance. jim
[videoblogging] Re: Primetime Emmys
Check http://emmyonline.org/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do you know offhand how much it costs to submit your name? i think someone sent me and eddie a form from the emmy's last year, but it was $450 to say hey, look at me we decided we're ok without a statue LOL On 4/1/08, awgyetvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if you guys have heard, but the Primetime Emmys are now open to internet-based shows. There are categories for fiction and non-fiction. I'd encourage anyone who thinks they're worthy to submit -- nothing like a few statuettes to help get some attention for the work you're all doing. You can find the info at http://emmys.informz.net/emmys/archives/archive_285089.html. -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Overview of Pro Lav Mics
Amazingly detailed article, Jan. Thanks for the link. :) Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/lavs_brockett.html Dan Brockett's article Includes prices, tech specs, photographs, and audio files for listening to samples from each in various situations. In the event you end up shopping for a lavaliere, this article would be a good place to begin. Prices range from $179-$600+ but you can find them used for significantly less if you know what you want. The thing with used mics is, they may or may not have the connector you require, so check it out first. When buying new, the seller will wire whatever connector you wish, usually included in the price. The other thing to be aware of with used lavs is cable length since in the field they are often damaged and repaired at the connector, whereupon the cable is shortened. Make sure there's enough mic cable left to be useful to you. Another factor is that dirt sweat salts gather in the mic screens, so used lav mics are likely to sound a bit flat when compared to new. You might want to delicately clean the screen on purchase. Someone asked me once if there was a cardioid lav and I said, No. Most are omni-directional. Apparently there IS a cardioid, and it's specifically designed to be 'seen' and used in very noisy environments. Were I to dedicate myself to doing conference interviews regularly, this is the mic I'd choose. Happy shopping! Jan -- The Faux Press - by whatever media necessary http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: encoding 16:9 for iPod on PC
I don't make anything 640w. My Vlog Deathmatch official entry video is the only one I can remember making 480w. I tend to be elitist when I make videos. As long as I can get it from my iTunes feed and it plays in my Nano, I'm good with it. :) That doesn't mean it's backwards compatible with other iPods. I've never tested that. I also don't own an iPhone, so I've never tested whether my videos, which are all at this point in the progression of my feed are 640w or wider, play on the iPhone at all. Then again, it's not like I have a large audience or any requirement to make videos that people with 800 mHz iMacs can watch. For instance, I encode my flash around 1400 kbps, which is a strain on older systems. I'll be interested to find out if my videos DON'T play on iPhones, because I'm *still* not going to make lower-resolution videos. :D Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah I found that link too, its a bit dated so not sure if its still true. Certainly I think 3rd party encoders found a way to make their stuff compatible. And as all these issues cause brain melt, my conclusion in the past was to use 3rd party encoders if I wanted precise control ipod compatibility. And as a further complication, are people catering much for iphone ipod touch? Because the max res for those seems to be 480x360. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Try this page, where Tyler Loch of http://www.techspansion.com writes: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2006-September/015930.html Baseline Low-Complexity is something they made up. It basically means Baseline with 1 reference frame. After a weekend of trial, error, hex reading, and headaches, I learned the following: Apple is using special tags to prevent iTunes from accepting 3rd- party-created .mp4 files. This seems to be similar to the PSP limitations --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: At 16:26 2008-04-04, you wrote: The specs are on the Apple site: http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html Video: H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats So I don't have experience with old iPods. I've put video with these data rates on 5th Gen iPods and also the iPod Nano which I'm using right now. If you want some examples, you can try my iTunes feed. Bill http://BillCammack.com Well I knew that, but nowhere in QT Pro's options does it mention 'Low complexity' and on http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html it specifically says The Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile has been defined by Apple for the iPod which would suggest that it is not standard vanilla baseline. That page refers one to wikipedia for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Profiles which, in turn, says: Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch support H.264 Baseline Profile, Levels 2.1 and 3, at resolutions up to 480x320 or 640x480 and bitrates up to 1.5 Mbit/s and is capable of playing the YouTube video content. with a ref to http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/20youtube.html which is pr fluff and doesn't say anything that specific, and doesn't mention classic or LC at all. I do see in the handy table provided that (number in brackets is max stored frames) level 1.3 = 352x288@ (6) @ 768 kbit/s level 2.1 = 352x480@ (7) @ 4 Mbit/s level 3 = 720x480@ (6) @ 10 Mbit/s which would lead me to believe that that claim is a little far-fetched. It appears a little odd that one can use the straight h.264 option in QTPro can be used to create smaller baseline files than the ipod 'low complexity' option. Maybe low is relative in this aspect? Why don't apple explain things more clearly I wonder Joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: encoding 16:9 for iPod on PC
I use a mac. I don't know it that makes instructions different from a PC. I've never clicked anything that says low complexity. When you get to the selection area, Main is selected by default. I click Baseline and that's it. From FCP, for instance: Export to Mpeg4 Compression: h.264 640x360 1400 kbps 30 fps (or 24, depending) Select Baseline Also, check out http://www.freevlog.org/ for their tutorials. Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been happily using QT Pro on the PC to convert 4:3 DV into iPod-compatible 320x240 baseline h.264 @ 608kpbs ever since the the first video iPod was introduced. Now I've been persuaded to start shooting 16:9 and I'm wondering how to best to encode it for iPod. A couple of things puzzle me. 1) I note that in the spec http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcaststechspecs.html it gives the newer option: 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 However the h.264 options in QT Pro only give 'baseline' or 'main' but no 'low-complexity'? 2) Googling around I see some mention of 640x352 as being the optimum size for 16:9 - why not 640x360? All advice appreciated. Thanks Joly punkcast.com --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: talkin' bout money
That's a really good idea, Rox. You already have an infinite catalogue, and you're still doing episodes on a regular basis. Since your content is evergreen, they could start with episode 001 and never catch up. You can already guarantee them a full year's worth of daily content. I would assume it would require a company to have an intranet loop and have your show run all day, every 15 minutes or 30 minutes, if they have that much content in the loop. The other option would be to have some sort of player that loads the day's episode and have that episode switched each day so the employees could view your show on demand. Good Luck with that! :D Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been noodling on an idea for over a year of licensing our content to companies for use on the intranet. Most people tell us they watch to reduce stress and get my head back on square while at the office. Lots of companies block YT and other internet sites, and actually want to drive people to the intranet for important company-related messages. HR materials to help people be healthier are so dated. Having modern, clean content that is is health-oriented, or comedy (laughter is healing - science has proven that), informational - well it just seems to me a natural fit. Yes the co could get it for free online, but that means opening up a port and by licensing it for internal use, they can get a custom feed, better quality, timed episode releases, and then there are all sorts of possibilities for integrating specific content ideas and internal messaging too. I've not yet been able to sell this to a company - approached Intel last year but they responded We've never done anything like this before. Which of course, I knew. So it will take a very forward-thinking company. As a former health coach. I would even bet that watching Beach Walks daily for a few months could lower people's blood pressure - and now we are talking serious savings in the health care costs department. I'd love any ideas you folks may have on this. Or leads to HR managers. Though I really am heading back to billables and will check in later today. Rox On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...and the type of information that's being provided there is definitely one that morphs on a continual basis. Adam W. Warner http://videobloggingreview.com http://wordpressmodder.org - Original Message From: schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] schlomo%40gmail.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 11:42:43 AM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] talkin' bout money But its not about just sending out the video on a DVD; its also about changing some of the content to keep it current. I think thats some of the interesting part. The chance to constantly refine the piece thats sold. It's kinda a double-edged sword... you want to be done with the video at some point, but you also want the information relevant. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: sell dvds instead? On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:36 PM, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]schlomo%40gmail. com wrote: Hey all One thing that is much more interesting than TALKING about how to make money from your videos is DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Don't you think? Take a look at what the folks at Common Craft are doing with their videos now: http://www.commoncr aft.com/our- new-adventure- common-craft- store Lee is a super-smart guy (and a nice guy to boot!), and I think his vision on the value of his works are usually spot-on. What do you think? -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog. blogspot. com http://hatfactory. net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog. blogspot. com http://hatfactory. net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] . -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: encoding 16:9 for iPod on PC
The specs are on the Apple site: http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html Video: H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats So I don't have experience with old iPods. I've put video with these data rates on 5th Gen iPods and also the iPod Nano which I'm using right now. If you want some examples, you can try my iTunes feed. Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill - does that size make it back through itunes onto an ipod? I thought ipod compatible videos had a smaller kbps cap, like around 6-700? David On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use a mac. I don't know it that makes instructions different from a PC. I've never clicked anything that says low complexity. When you get to the selection area, Main is selected by default. I click Baseline and that's it. From FCP, for instance: Export to Mpeg4 Compression: h.264 640x360 1400 kbps 30 fps (or 24, depending) Select Baseline Also, check out http://www.freevlog.org/ for their tutorials. Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: I've been happily using QT Pro on the PC to convert 4:3 DV into iPod-compatible 320x240 baseline h.264 @ 608kpbs ever since the the first video iPod was introduced. Now I've been persuaded to start shooting 16:9 and I'm wondering how to best to encode it for iPod. A couple of things puzzle me. 1) I note that in the spec http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcaststechspecs.html it gives the newer option: 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 However the h.264 options in QT Pro only give 'baseline' or 'main' but no 'low-complexity'? 2) Googling around I see some mention of 640x352 as being the optimum size for 16:9 - why not 640x360? All advice appreciated. Thanks Joly punkcast.com -- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com -- -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: encoding 16:9 for iPod on PC
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:23 2008-04-04, David King wrote:
Bill - does that size make it back through itunes onto an ipod? I
thought
ipod compatible videos had a smaller kbps cap, like around 6-700?
David
Well that's the very point, apparently not, since firmware 1.2, as
long as the files
are encoded as 'low-complexity' h.264, the limit goes up to 1.5mpbs.
I've finally found some info on
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html
which is aimed at application authors wanting to incorporate QTPro
functionality into
their programs.
Only the 'export to iPod' option gives you the 'low complexity'
profile, and that is
only applied to sources that are bigger than 320x240. Sources that
are bigger
than 640x480 are scaled to fit. These are the sizes profiles applied
320x240 or lessas source baseline 1.3
320x240 up to 640x480 as source baseline LC
640x480scaled to fit preserving aspect ratio
baseline LC
I assume this cures the letterboxing that used to occur when
converting NTSC DV which is why
old-schoolers like me avoided the iPod preset in the first place.
As far as bitrates go:
320 x240 goes at 700kbps
640x480 at 1.5mps
and anything else somewhere between the two according to this formula:
DR = { (nMC * 8 ) / 3 } - 100 where DR is the data rate in kbps and
nMC is the number of macroblocks in the image.
Then comes the bit about 16:9 and I get confused again. Some code is
illustrated to
demonstrate 'aperture modes' After a couple of pics that indicate that
widescreen video will become a little squished on a classic iPod. It
says
IMPORTANT: As shown in Table 4, the iPod export component will only
scale movie images larger than 640x480 to fit while maintaining aspect
ratio to produce Baseline Low-Complexity profile .m4v files. If you
want to produce Baseline profile .m4v files up to 320x240 or Baseline
Low-Complexity profile files larger than 320x240 (but smaller than or
equal to 640x480), you will need to correct for aspect ratio yourself.
Could someone explain that, please?
It seems like what they're saying is that if you're in between 640x480
and 320x240, you have to make sure the aspect ratio is correct on your
own. I don't know what sense that makes, really. Once you're making
the video, you already HAVE an aspect ratio.
I use a mac. I don't know it that makes instructions different
from a
PC. I've never clicked anything that says low complexity. When you
get to the selection area, Main is selected by default. I click
Baseline and that's it. From FCP, for instance:
Export to Mpeg4
Compression: h.264
640x360
1400 kbps
30 fps (or 24, depending)
Select Baseline
Bill, I always understood that that option gives the 1.3 profile, am
I wrong?
I take it that you've tested that on an iPod. In which case I must be.
I'll admit that I've never owned one of the b*rs
Joly
Well, that's just the thing. :) When I set up a video as an
enclosure, I open my iTunes to my feed, update, and as soon as the
video gets to my computer, I send it to the Nano. That way, I know if
there are any encoding problems.
I've only done this with 5th Gen iPods and my Nano, so I can't say
that the specs I gave work for older iPods. I also don't use a PC, so
I can't say whether there are different requirements because of that.
Check http://freevlog.org
Bill
http://BillCammack.com
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, check out http://www.freevlog.org/ for their tutorials.
Bill
http://BillCammack.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com,
WWWhatsup joly@ wrote:
I've been happily using QT Pro on the PC to convert 4:3 DV into
iPod-compatible 320x240 baseline
h.264 @ 608kpbs ever since the the first video iPod was introduced.
Now I've been persuaded to start
shooting 16:9 and I'm wondering how to best to encode it for
iPod. A
couple of things puzzle me.
1) I note that in the spec
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcaststechspecs.html it gives the
newer option:
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
However the h.264 options in QT Pro only give 'baseline' or 'main'
but no 'low-complexity'?
2) Googling around I see some mention of 640x352 as being the
optimum size for 16:9 - why not 640x360?
All advice appreciated.
Thanks
Joly
punkcast.com
--
WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--
--
David King
[videoblogging] Re: encoding 16:9 for iPod on PC
Try this page, where Tyler Loch of http://www.techspansion.com writes: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2006-September/015930.html Baseline Low-Complexity is something they made up. It basically means Baseline with 1 reference frame. After a weekend of trial, error, hex reading, and headaches, I learned the following: Apple is using special tags to prevent iTunes from accepting 3rd- party-created .mp4 files. This seems to be similar to the PSP limitations --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:26 2008-04-04, you wrote: The specs are on the Apple site: http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html Video: H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats So I don't have experience with old iPods. I've put video with these data rates on 5th Gen iPods and also the iPod Nano which I'm using right now. If you want some examples, you can try my iTunes feed. Bill http://BillCammack.com Well I knew that, but nowhere in QT Pro's options does it mention 'Low complexity' and on http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html it specifically says The Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile has been defined by Apple for the iPod which would suggest that it is not standard vanilla baseline. That page refers one to wikipedia for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Profiles which, in turn, says: Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch support H.264 Baseline Profile, Levels 2.1 and 3, at resolutions up to 480x320 or 640x480 and bitrates up to 1.5 Mbit/s and is capable of playing the YouTube video content. with a ref to http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/20youtube.html which is pr fluff and doesn't say anything that specific, and doesn't mention classic or LC at all. I do see in the handy table provided that (number in brackets is max stored frames) level 1.3 = [EMAIL PROTECTED] (6) @ 768 kbit/s level 2.1 = [EMAIL PROTECTED] (7) @ 4 Mbit/s level 3 = [EMAIL PROTECTED] (6) @ 10 Mbit/s which would lead me to believe that that claim is a little far-fetched. It appears a little odd that one can use the straight h.264 option in QTPro can be used to create smaller baseline files than the ipod 'low complexity' option. Maybe low is relative in this aspect? Why don't apple explain things more clearly I wonder Joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
