Re: [videoblogging] Stock/Royalty-Free Music sources
Rupert Howe wrote: I'm trying to expand my list of stock/royalty-free music sources - particularly websites. Which supply tracks that can be used for commercial as well as non-commercial use? For my commercial work, I mostly use music volumes from digitaljuice.com - and that's not just because I do work for them! ;) They do two lines of music. The current product is called StackTraxx. Using their software, you can turn off different tracks of music (i.e. turn off all but drums bass) to customize it. You don't get the MIDI data or anything - everything is in a song already, it's just that you get it in its multitrack format. This is handy for voiceovers. I create two versions of the song - one with all the tracks, and then one with just the rhythm tracks. This way I can fade between the two, using the simpler one when voiceover comes in. Great to not have the music compete with narration. StackTraxx come in various lengths, including 10 seconds, 15 sec, 30, 60, and full length around 4-5 minutes The other collection they used to have was called BackTraxx. This was a massive 2 volume set with something like 10,000 tracks. Some were a little synthy and cheap sounding, but with the sheer number of tracks I was surprised at how many were darned good. Not as many length variatons here. These used to come on CD's so you could even use them in an audio player, but more recent issues are on DVD-roms. StackTraxx aren't a current product, but you can find them on Ebay every once in a while, and Digital Juice brings them back as a special product at a deal price. Actually, that's a good reason to subscribe to their email list and Facebook. They put out subscriber only deals every once in a while. Like StackTraxx volumes for ten bucks and such. That's how I put together a lot of my collection over the years. I do tutorials for them, but this is unsolicited enthusiasm for the products. I don't get a commission or anything. ;) -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Creating (or outsourcing) title sequences for videobloggers
Funny that you bring this topic up. One of the things I'm working on is offering my video production services a la carte. One of those services will be opening title sequences... But yeah, there are companies out there that sell pre-made templates that you drop in After Effects and tweak for yourself. The ones I've seen, are very nice. The prices vary, but of course you've got to have AE, and the time and chops to do the tweaking. ;) And I don't think that they tend to include music. I'm sure it varies from provider to provider. I don't have a formal thing ready to roll out yet, but if anyone is looking for slick titles backgrounds and such (maybe intertitles? bumpers?) then email me off list. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Veoh is dead
elbowsofdeath wrote: There is a rich spectrum of problems in this area and I dont see any signs that any have improved since we first talked about these issues years ago. I'm decloaking to roundly agree with you. I've been in discussions with several local TV broadcasters here in Chicago who desperately want to be on the web, but are completely befuddled by how to do it. Not the technical aspect, of course, but how to create compelling content that's not just a clip from their morning news. They are so deeply entrenched in how TV has worked, that they don't get the more personal and informal aspects of web video... which is strange. Our style of TV in the early days of broadcast is referred to as The Chicago School of Television, and we pioneered the casual feel that TV thrives on. That was back in the 50's of course. I guess those hard won lessons are forgotten. All I can say is that along the way I've met a number of people within those companies who genuinely get it. The difficulties are finding a way to explain to management why this is beneficial, how to monetize it, and how to retain control of the content. Many of your management types are reluctant to go to the web because they see it as competition for their TV channels. Don't forget that these guys are really accustomed to things working the way they have for some 50 years. Promising a sponsor or even an individual that they'll be on TV doesn't carry that much weight anymore, when they can do it themselves at home. I did just get a couple phone calls today about possible future work for one of my favorite TV stations in Chicago creating web content. We'll see if it comes true, and whether i can create a hybrid that embraces the honesty and fun of internet video, and still meet the goals of a commercial station. I'll let you guys know if/when it happens. It will be very much a one-man-band scenario... just under the umbrella of an established broadaster. Cheers and no offence intended to anyone that makes content - I was always on dicey ground when sharing these thoughts in the past due to my own lack of producing any meaningful video on the web but hey ho. When I was a teacher of film television, one of the first things I would impart to students is that they've spent their whole lives being an audience to many many different kinds of media. That's a huge qualification for having an opinion. Not that it's always right, but that's how opinions usually work. ;) The other thing I told my students was that if they didn't remember anything else from my class, they should remember that they're creating work FOR an audience, not IN SPITE OF and audience. if you're trying to say something, and no one in your audience gets it, that's the filmmaker's fault not the audience's. Oh, and if it's any consolation... I've barely made anything that's online either. ;) -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
Hiya, Just a word of background, I do TV production for a living. Mostly independent stuff, but some broadcast stuff... I've been approached a lot by companies like this, especially start-ups. They want me to find ways to reduce costs, and still deliver a large percentage of what I do to clients. The problem is that I do actually have to make a living off of making video, and that's not going to happen if each one takes a day or two to make and the most I can hope to get is $25-100. It's great if you're on vacation, take a few fun videos, and then get a check for $25... that's great. The problem is when I'm asked to create videos with the same level of production that I usually charge many time more for. You're right... there are a lot of start-ups out there who think that the best business model is to create a venue for other people to do all the work, and then they make their cash off the backs of others. Ebay is a great example of that. They've created this quasi-community (less and less these days) and behave as if they were a store like Amazon (with special quasi-promotions, advertising, etc.), but they don't actually stock anything or even lick a postage stamp. They've made their fortune by creating this virtual market. That's fair since everyone is making a little something, but what do I get out of making a video review for $25-50? It's fine if you're having fun, but how to move to the next level? What affects me now is that many clients who approach me now think that this is the status quo for video production. I love the FLIP camera (I have several of them, after all...), but its ease has made my clients think that all video is just that easy. it's funny how shocked people are when they call me for a gig, and I don't jump at the chance to bring thousands of dollars worth of gear to their $200 shoot. Oh well, these topics have been covered before here so I'll quiet down. I love the video revolution, and I love that more people are using video to communicate than ever, but I don't love opportunistic companies who devalue the industries that they try to exploit. TurnHere.com, who are an agency who match up filmmakers with small businesses, have a new promo going for US Canadian filmmakers. You can offer free 1 minute videos to small businesses, and Turnhere will pay you $200 to make them. It's a very small amount of money, and is undercutting other people who are trying to do the same thing on an individual basis. But the requirements are much lower than your average bespoke video job. It's pretty much video by numbers. Turn up for an hour, shoot an interview with the proprietor, shoot some B roll, cut a 1 minute film, get paid $200. I looked into their business model. I'd want to here from video producers who did a lot of work for them. Seems more like http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia. Ironically, Turnhere's orientation video is a downloading WMV: http://producers.turnhere.com/orientation-webinar-video.html Guess some there doesn't know how to do simple transcoding? Sorry to be a scrooge, but I hate companies that just want to profit from other people's work. Like an Amway scheme. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Jay dedman wrote: Flash has helped make watching online video easy. Its done its job, thanks. Now go sit in the corner with Real Audio. Amen to that. One of the parts of the transition to computer based video that I've hated, hated, hated, is the many codecs and the myriad flavors of each. Flash was one of those, I'll be glad to see it go. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] 2010 the year of the flip?
David Jones wrote: Sanyo Xacti VPC-HD2000 I have the HD1010 which is almost identical in terms of feature set for most practical uses, and a fair bit cheaper. Interesting. I'll bear that in mind. The lens and sensor size are streets ahead of any pocket cam, and it supports add-on lenses. That's the thing that really interests me. It's funny... for years I've used Canon's line of cameras with removable lenses, but I've never been able to afford the lenses! I just recently bought a pair of more consumer oriented Canon HDV cameras used, got 'em really cheap. The seller basically sold me his whole outfit with lots f spare bits, and my favorite is the screw-on fisheye adapters. He's a still camera so he some pretty high standard for this stuff. He sort of put down the quality of these add-ons, but I'm as pleased as punch. In film school, I was a little too into shooting wide-angle, and had to give that up when I entered video. So, I definitely want to play with the Xacti, especially with the extra lenses. I've been trying to interest a few magazines into having me a do a pocket cam shootout, but since these aren't seen as very pro I haven't been very successful in pitching the article. BTW I just had an article puvblished about Macro videography in Videomaker if any of you might be interested. http://www.videomaker.com/article/14745/ -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker
Re: [videoblogging] 2010 the year of the flip?
I have edited the MP4 output of both the Flip HD and the Kodak Zi8 with varying degrees of success. As someone here mentioned, the included software is there to chop the heads and tails off of clips, but really isn't good for anything more involved than that. A lot of the issue is just ram throughput and how quickly the MP4 stream can be decoded so you can see it and edit with it. I've tried most of the major pro software, and I didn't get especially good performance. The best performance came from software called SpeedEDIT by NewTek (the same folks who make the TriCaster the old Video Toaster from the 90's). It's not exactly cheap, and it doesn't have the sheer number of features of Premiere of Final Cut, but it is far more robust especially when editing with multiple formats. It fared pretty well with MP4 footage, but certainly was not as snappy as with the stuff coming from my HDV cameras. I have occasionally transcoded into other more edit friendly codecs, but I just hate doing that. Recompressing is never a good idea, especially if the fotage you started with is already compressed to within an inch of its life. My idea was to use pocket cams for impromptu interviews and such, but MP4 really is too fussy for editing with at this point... even on a beefy edit machine. Possibly the next generation of PC hardware software will do better, but I vastly prefer the responsiveness of stuff I capture with HDV cams. Still can't match how portable and spontaneous those little pocket cams are. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] 2010 the year of the flip?
Jim Turner wrote: I bought two when they came out. One didnt work out of the box and the other is now dead. I've got four of them, and I did have one croak on me during an upgrade. Their software zorched the firmware during the upgrade. I think that it was part of a known problem at the time. Flip reluctantly replaced the camera, though it was out of warranty. I have been unexpectedly happy with the results of those cameras. I'm mostly accustomed to pro stuff, and this has encouraged me to be way more spontaneous with shooting than normal. I am headed to the Kodak Zi8 and it has mic in. I have this one as well. The mic jack is very nice. It's SO close to being the perfect pocket camera... The VU meter doesn't stay on while you're recording, and I found it to be pretty inaccurate. I recorded a whole conference with one, and the audio all came out pretty crummy even though the VU meters showed that I was well below distorting. My other complaint is that there's no way to connect a headphone up or a monitor while you're recording. Plugging anything into that jack automatically shunts the camera into playback mode. One more thing. The 1080 mode isn't ready for primetime yet. While we're all used to there being some shearing with left and right rapid movement of the camera, at 1080 it doesn't take much at all to get the image to get VERY wonky. If you're filming a talking head against a static background, you'll be fine. Anything else and you'll really exaggerate the shearing. Using it as a 5MP camera is an unexpected bonus. I'm not a camera phone guy, so this is the first time I feel like I hav a camera with me anywhere I go. The macro function is GREAT too. For my website at retrothing.com I do a lot of closeups of gadgets. I think that this camera will come in very handy for that. For what it costs, it's pretty amazing. I will do a video review of it one of these days, especially pitting it against the Flip HD. Both have very pleasing pictures, and both yield video formats that are hard for me ot edit (G). I'm also interested in the Sanyo camera. Can't recall the model # - it's something 2000 I think. It's ability to use external mics and larger lens really interest me. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
TVP Re: [videoblogging] getting better quality out of Blip.TV
Chad Boeninger wrote: Hi all, I've been using Blip.TV for quite some time for nearly all of my video blog posts and other video projects, for both work and fun. I love the service and the features, but have started to become a little disappointed with the final flash video after conversion. If you upload the same video to Blip, Vimeo, YouTube, and Facebook, the Blip version that is converted seems to be the worst in the bunch. I'm generally only uploading SD video, if that makes any difference. I don't plan on moving away from Blip any time soon, as the other features (playlists, cross posting, customized player, custom thumnails, etc) are the reasons I stay with Blip. However, I was wondering if any of you have any suggestions for getting better quality out of the Blip video player. Are there tricks I can employ on my end to make my file more friendly to conversion? I'm a low budget windows user, so typically my files are WMV (Flip video SD) or Mov (Canon SD 780 IS), and I occasionally still shoot video with and older Canon MiniDV (edit in moviemaker and output as WMV). Is there a file type or size that Blip may like better for better quality conversion to flash? The other three seem to take WMVs just fine and crunch them well, but perhaps there's something better I should be looking at when uploading to Blip. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --Chad -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
TVP Re: [videoblogging] getting better quality out of Blip.TV
Rupert wrote: If you upload as iPod compatible H264 M4V files (.M4V is Apple's extension for iPod compatible MP4 files), you can customise your Blip Show Player to show them in their original form. However, even so, I've been noticing a deterioration in quality and colour recently, and I'm not sure why that is. Blip's flash conversion has always been a bit grey and pixelly - as Jay says, you can always just upload your own flv file - converted using MPEGStreamclip or your editing software. There was a point when people loved Blip because they had the best quality and best feature set, back when YouTube's quality was appalling. They seem to be losing that advantage now. I heard someone I didn't know really complaining about their reliability at an event last week. Add to that the uncertainty about what's acceptable under their TCs as discussed here before. It must be a very expensive competitive business, and seems they're defining a different niche for themselves: a home for Web TV serials, rather than home movies. In my experience, Vimeo has very good quality - but as Jay said, Blip allows you to link to the original file for podcasting. A solution I've been using recently is uploading to Vimeo and Blip at the same time using Pixelpipe, then embedding the Vimeo player and linking to the file on Blip for podcasting/iTunes. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 30-Nov-09, at 2:53 PM, Chad Boeninger wrote: Hi all, I've been using Blip.TV for quite some time for nearly all of my video blog posts and other video projects, for both work and fun. I love the service and the features, but have started to become a little disappointed with the final flash video after conversion. If you upload the same video to Blip, Vimeo, YouTube, and Facebook, the Blip version that is converted seems to be the worst in the bunch. I'm generally only uploading SD video, if that makes any difference. I don't plan on moving away from Blip any time soon, as the other features (playlists, cross posting, customized player, custom thumnails, etc) are the reasons I stay with Blip. However, I was wondering if any of you have any suggestions for getting better quality out of the Blip video player. Are there tricks I can employ on my end to make my file more friendly to conversion? I'm a low budget windows user, so typically my files are WMV (Flip video SD) or Mov (Canon SD 780 IS), and I occasionally still shoot video with and older Canon MiniDV (edit in moviemaker and output as WMV). Is there a file type or size that Blip may like better for better quality conversion to flash? The other three seem to take WMVs just fine and crunch them well, but perhaps there's something better I should be looking at when uploading to Blip. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --Chad -- Chad F. Boeninger libraryvoice.com - blog libraryvoice.com/videos - videoblog twitter.com/cfboeninger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Kodak Zi8 for blogging?
David Jones wrote: o all the meters, and yet my sound was a little overmodulated. Shouldn't be a problem for me. So the Zi8 has VU meters?, that's awesome, I was going to check for that feature. It's a rare feature among this grade of cameras, but I didn't get very reliable results when I used them. I come from the pro video world, and sometimes gear likes this tries to invent their own standard for how to do things. There's a much more comprehensive manual online than in the box that I should consult. One of the things that really gets me with all these pocket cams is that there is no headphone jack so you can hear what the camera is getting on its mic jack. I used to tell my students, you wouldn't shoot withouth looking through the viewfinder, why record audio without monitoring it? I only use the VU meter at present with my external mic, and find no need to use headphones at all. I'll accept what you're saying, and I guess because often videoblogging is just a single talking head looking into a camera, that can work. It just gives me the heebie-jeebies. There are chances for weird electric hum to get in as well as external noise that you don't notice until you're done shooting. Again, that's just my thing. This is where film school has made me persnickety about these sorts of things. I need to learn to just let go. ;) Not really. Your DV cam is 720 x 480 Yeah, but it ultimately gets downsampled to 640x480 (4:3) for uploading to Youtube. DV compression is much milder than MP4, so it would be far better for your ultimate video quality to capture and edit in DV, and only as a last step render out an MP4. The actual pixel count is only part of the equation, of course. That's my beef with these cameras all shooting MP4. First generation played out of the camera looks awesome, but if you're going to edit, that's another compression pass, and then ultimately whatever the video streaming site uses is a third. I'ev shot in HD and had it end up looking like crummy VHS. That's why whenever I can, I shoot in some higher bandwidth format and then use MP4 strictly as a distribution format. I know the Zi8 is going to be far from perfect, but my problem is really don't see any other option around this price point (say $AU300) for a cam of any type with SD card and external mic support. Those two features are really compelling, I must admit. I got one hoping that the ease of it would encourage me to do more video content for my site without the laborious method I've been using slowing me down. My content is rather static as well, so I just need to find away to get the quality where I think it should be, and I'll be a happy guy. Finding a way to make the mic input work the way it should would be another plus. ;) I love that the camera uses swappable cards, and the macro mode is a real welcome feature for product reviews. I guess the main change I would want (and this is just personal preference) is if it used regular batteries rather than a proprietary power pack. The cards are so voluminous now, I run out of juice way before I run out of shooting space. It would be nice to be able to swap out a couple rechargeables when thins get dim. Nice camera overall, for sure. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker
Re: [videoblogging] Kodak Zi8 for blogging?
David Jones wrote: I don't need the full HD, but 720 HD would be nice. At the highest settings, the Zi8 does exhibit some weirdness with motion. Fine for talking heads, not good for action. Any comments on the Zi8 for video blogging? Anyone know of any other pocket video cams with an external mic jack like the Zi8? Has a strange issue with the mic jack. If you pull out the plug while shooting, you get a weird high pitched squeal that doesn't go away til you cycle the power. Also I haven't gotten the hang of the VU meters and adjusting the incoming audio. I used the Zi8 on a shoot with a mixer feeding into it, and I should have gotten pristine audio according to all the meters, and yet my sound was a little overmodulated. One of the things that really gets me with all these pocket cams is that there is no headphone jack so you can hear what the camera is getting on its mic jack. I used to tell my students, you wouldn't shoot withouth looking through the viewfinder, why record audio without monitoring it? My current cam is an old Canon Optura60 DV (NTSC), not exactly a stand-out performer, so I figure a good pocket cam today will likely beat it. Not really. Your DV cam is 720 x 480, while most pocket cams are 640 x 480 and an image sensor that probably isn't as good. Pocket cams all have this image lag thing I was referencing above with fast-moving subjects. The sensor isn't fast enough to keep up with horizontal moves. Test this by pointing the camera out the side window of a moving car. You'll see the image shear, making everything look tilted. DV cameras don't do that. I'm using pocket cams more and more for my work that doesn't need really crisp image quality, and the convenience of having a camera with you at all times can't be beat. But editing on that footage is a bear. It's compressed so darned far that by the time I've uploaded to Blip, it looks like I've shot on a VHS camcorder... I've still got to get that figured out. ;) -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
Sorry - I'm joining the conversation late... have you had a look at Ustream.tv? They're free, and the quality is better than many pay services I was looking into. I streamed 26 hours straight at an event to break a World's Record, and there were no problems. I guess if you'd prefer your stuff to not have ads, then I can see looking into other solutions, but the economy of this free service combined with the really excellent video quality has me sold. Oh, and the usual disclaimers... I don't work for them... etc. etc. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
