[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[videoblogging] Re: Anthropology of Social Justice and Mobile Media
Sounds like a great class. For general resources, I'd point you a few online syllabi/course websites related to your course. They don't specifically deal with social justice, but might be helpful: SFSU: http://beca670.blogspot.com/ University of Iowa (my course on videoblogging; it's a bit outdated now!): http://jenniferproctor.com/?page_id=136 Jen Simmons also developed a great syllabus and materials for a course she taught at Temple, but it seems to be offline now; maybe give her a shout through http://jensimmons.com (or maybe she'll chime in here). Off the top of my head, I'd also point you to these websites: Homeless Nation http://www.homelessnation.org/ Alive in Baghdad http://aliveinbaghdad.org/ Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mgotanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am soliciting ideas on literature/theory and course activities for an undergraduate course in social justice with a focus on mobile media and video blogging at the U of Colorado Denver. May have students use RCA small wonder video camera OR mini flip (any thoughts). Will use apple's imovie or final cut, and blogger. Would be grateful for your suggestions on course readings/websites and class activities (in and out of class), and guest speakers in Denver area. thanks in advance. Marty Otanez, PhD Assistant Professor Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver [EMAIL PROTECTED] sidewalkradio.net
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Rupert's absolutely correct, of course. In addition, ever since the advent of the moving image, there have been outsiders making moving image art - from magic lantern producers in the 1800s to 16mm avant-garde filmmakers and 8mm home movie enthusiasts mid-century and video artists in the 1970s and 80s. And these outsider (and underground) artists *paid* for their work to be seen - they invested in the materials of production, and often put up the funds to have their work screened in a venue. This is still the dominant model of independent and avant-garde filmmaking - you invest up front, *pay* a film festival to *consider* screening your film, and then, if you're in the tiniest minority, your film might get picked up for distribution or win a monetary award. Even Stan Brakhage, one of the most prolific, widely acclaimed, and accomplished of experimental filmmakers, never came close to earning a living from his work alone. He taught. So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7-Aug-08, at 7:35 PM, ractalfece wrote: This crisis is a wet dream for marketers. Media becomes all about the metrics. Just find the content with the highest hit count and cover it with ads. You no longer have to worry about quality. You just worry about the positioning of the clickable ad. In this new game, the perfect content is titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Get the web surfers in and make sure the ad is there for them when they get bored or when the two minutes is up. That's why it's now possible to make an easy $6000 by putting ads on top of promos. Ask Tim Street how it's done. - When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. - I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first. I used to think I had to bend myself to become successful at the business of online video. But maybe business can be approached like an art form. You know, like Robin Marks at the carnival. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Now if the idea is riff on old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with that? In that context it's fun. Verdi
[videoblogging] Re: some experimental templates
This is very cool; I look forward to playing with these templates. There's another similar project that's just been launched that I thought I should share, called snstncntnrs. It provides a pretty intensely edited XML or EDL file that you can then associate with your own three videos with pretty interesting results. It's an open source project that is calling for contributions. It's a fun form of video experimentation, but also a really interesting way to learn about editing aesthetics and other people's approaches to it. Details here: http://www.snstncntnrs.org/ Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi all a few years ago I made some templates that let you make what we could describe as experimental video blog works. I have redone some of these templates (more to come), and thought I'd give a quick heads up for the 4 that are available, for those that want to use them. They're located at http://vogmae.net.au/drupal/doing/rhizome There are four templates. You can download them as zip archives. Each is a QT movie with an associated XML file. The XML file is where you put the urls of the video/audio you want the template to use. These four all let you play two 320x240 videos next to each other, and two of them also allow you to play a third soundtrack. They loop. They are intended to encourage experimentation, and to make concrete for those without access to authoring tools some features of what fully web based video might actually do. (YMMV.) No doubt there are some errors, please let me know and I'll try to fix things, otherwise for those that are interested, I hope you enjoy. WARNING: if you use these then they cannot be used in RSS feeds as media enclosures. Eg if you rely on subscriptions these will not work. This is because each QT movie must be able to read the XML file and in RSS feeds all that is delivered is the QT movie which, once on the client computer or device (eg iPod) can no longer find the XML file, and so cannot find or load the media it requires. Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Need some sound effects help
I'm a big fan of the Freesound Project, http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/, a CC-licensed database of user-submitted audio, mostly by audiophiles from around the world. Not the best for finding specific sound effects necessarily, but lots of great ambient sounds, some fx, sound art, etc. Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all - I know there are a few places on the web where you can get free sound effects, I use a couple. but is there any that you use on a regular basis? Anyone? Also, if anyone has some good breeze sounds, wind through trees, leaves, bushes, etc and some good crowd cheering sounds, I would appreciate a link or maybe if you are so inclined you could send me the file? I aapreciate ya'lls help! Heath http://batmangeek.com http://aroundcincinnati.net
[videoblogging] Re: Local Vlog screenings (was: Weekly Video Conference)
I find this quite an interesting thread, and especially in the wake of Pixelodeon, I find it interesting/strange/concerning/exciting that there is an interest in taking these small format works and putting them up on the big screen. Watching video on a big screen with a group audience vastly changes the way we experience the moving image, so it really takes the videos out of the original context. I'm not saying that's good or bad (though at Pixelodeon I think many of us experienced how wonderful that can be. Long live the movie theater!), nor do I have any particularly well formed thoughts on that at the moment, but I thought I'd throw it out there since it hasn't been addressed. As for actually putting these screenings together, a couple notes: --I'd just like emphasize the importance of informing the creators of the videos that their works are being shown, even when CC-licensed. This is often overlooked by film festivals, and I find it quite a frustrating practice. Not that we vloggers would ever do this! But I just had to throw it out there, as sometimes that little detail can get overlooked when trying to deal with all the logistical issues that go into putting on a screening. --There are obviously lots of filmmakers/curators/enthusiasts out there that have been putting on these kinds of screenings for a long time, so perhaps tapping into the film community could help to answer some of the logistical questions that have been posed. It seems nuts to re-invent the wheel in coordinating screenings when others have been polishing the process for a long time. I'd be happy to contribute to a wiki in this respect. --Lastly, Senor Aaron Valdez has created an ever-growing map of microcinemas in the U.S. that may come in handy for such planning: http://www.wayfaring.com/maps/show/1151 Cheers, Jen http://jenniferproctor.com http://lostinlight.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yeah see that's excellent info. I'd love to see people with this sort of experience flesh out a FAQ on the wiki. Finding videos doesn't scare me away from doing this, its not knowing what all I don't know. :-) On 6/21/07, Charles Hope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We (blip.tv) have been holding movie nights at the Pioneer theater (http://twoboots.com/pioneer) every few months. The next one will coincide with vloggercue (http://vloggercue.pbwiki.com/), most likely on Sunday 12 August. David Meade wrote: Finding videos probably isn't a challenge for those who would be interested in doing this. no? What I think would be of great value on the wiki is a sort of FAQ/Tips on how to accomplish such an event: 1) What sort of venues might be interested in participating? 2) Where should I start my search for a venue? (resources other than the yellow pages?) Besides small alternative/art theaters, you may find certain bars or coffee shops amenable. 3) What are the important things to consider when selecting a venue? (facilities, surrounding area, hotels/transit, other?) 4) What list of requirements/preferences should I provide the venue management? 5) What objections/questions should I expect from the venue management during planning? 6) What is the venue going to expect of me? (If not money, then what else if anything should I expect to provide to the venue?) The Pioneer theater prefers the content on Mini DV, with a DVD backup. and even promotion stuff: 1) How can I best get the word out locally? etc etc etc - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Local Vlog screenings (was: Weekly Video Conference)
and just to be clear, since Jay, as you point out, my original post was somewhat cryptic-- When I talk about the recontextualizing of videos when they're shown in a theater, I'm thinking about the presentations at Pixelodeon - and I'm not even thinking specifically about taking videos outside of the blog context (which is a valid concern), but taking them from their rather small, intimate, usually one-on-one kind of a viewing context, sometimes even heard via headphones, often viewed in passing when one has a free moment - and, instead, putting those little videos up on a bigger-than-life screen, with loud audio, a group of people watching a responding, and making the video a main attraction. This shift in context can radically change the meaning of the original video. I've talked to a number of vloggers who view their work as being fleeting, in-the-moment, designed for an intimate viewing situation in which an individual can respond personally, rather than collectively, to the video, and in those cases, I fear that, as Brook notes, the translation to the big screen might not work, and ultimately might not respect the creator's intentions. If a video is CC licensed, a creator might be giving up some control, which I think can be wonderful, but these are concerns to take into consideration when taking a videoblog post and turning it, essentially, into a video. Again, I'm not necessarily taking a position here - I'm not sure what I think yet - but I do feel that a lot of my own work would lose something if played for a group on a big screen. It might gain something too - but there would be sacrifices made there as well. Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find this quite an interesting thread, and especially in the wake of Pixelodeon, I find it interesting/strange/concerning/exciting that there is an interest in taking these small format works and putting them up on the big screen. Watching video on a big screen with a group audience vastly changes the way we experience the moving image, so it really takes the videos out of the original context. I'm not saying that's good or bad (though at Pixelodeon I think many of us experienced how wonderful that can be. Long live the movie theater!), nor do I have any particularly well formed thoughts on that at the moment, but I thought I'd throw it out there since it hasn't been addressed. i wanted to take a another stab at answering jen's point so i dont come off so gruff. the web is not TV. that's the mantra. I believe that the BLOG aspect of a videoblog is very important. pulling videos out of the blog and showing on a big screen does start losing some of what I love about what we do. So dont think of local vlog screenings as needing to be traditional sit/watch/leave. Ryanne suggested things like have people stand up and talk between videos. play videos from the actual blog (on the big screen)...so people see it in context. Mix it with performance. Have some bands play. in the end, i think we're just talking about focusing on content versus the tech...since we know there's so much good stuff now that could bring more people in. Jay
[videoblogging] Re: Local Vlog screenings (was: Weekly Video Conference)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) To connect with work/people/audiences in other indie moving image practices, curators can put together a program and try to get existing microcinemas and media arts organizations to put it on their schedule - there are thriving venues and organizations in most cities. This way you not only don't deal with renting a hall/projector/etc., but you tap into the REST of the moving image community. again, i fear huge slowdowns because of the bureaucracy of the media organizations. use any contacts, do some inquiries...but dont let these folks slow you down. That's valid in some ways, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume microcinemas and other media arts orgs are bureaucratic machines caught up in red tape. Many microcinemas are absolutely working in the same spirit that we're discussing here - very DIY and open-minded AND enjoying large, built-in audiences - so I wouldn't dismiss the value they can have in organizing such events and connecting vlog work to other communities. 2) Along the same lines, I would be more interested in seeing videoblogging work in MIXED programs that also show other moving image work. I've been talking along these lines to a couple of places about programs for next season that try to grapple with the questions about aesthetics and context that Jen talks about in her post. Again, it takes curators. i think thats why its great that everyone can try it their own way. So Brook, you know this world of moving image work. you would be the best person in San Francisco to connect the vlogging world and the m ore established video arts world. brook...the time is now! youve been talking about it for too long! just tell me how i can help you. If this movement, for lack of a better term, is to have a real lasting place and influence in the broader spectrum of moving image work (I know the phrase is terribly academic but I can't think of a more inclusive one, and anyway as conflicted as I am about it I live a good percentage of the time in that world), it needs to be in dialog with other film/video/installation/web art/etc. work. see.im not sure if thats true. i think the academic side better begin reaching out...or else new video makers will totally go around the current system of grant/installation/festival process. I see your point, Jay, but I wouldn't equate the grant/installation/festival process with the academic world - these are often very separate communities. I do agree that both of those communities need to be more open to new work coming from new circles, but vloggers need to do some of the outreach too. And it CAN be successful, in all of these communities, with good communication and conversations with the right people. It's just a question of getting the ball rolling. Jen
[videoblogging] Re: Pixelodeon Success!
And I will fifth or sixth this. Thanks to all the amazing organizers and volunteers who put this together. It was an especially amazing experience to see all this little videos on the big screen. Much to think about. And, as always, the best part is meeting all the amazing and kind and hilarious people that are a part of all this. Only sad I had to leave early. I really look forward to seeing all the other curated screenings. Such a nice way to see (new) work. Jen http://jenniferproctor.com http://lostinlight.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll second, third or fourth this. It was great finally meeting all of you and seeing you in 3D. The screenings that I was able to attend were, in the words of Rupert Howe, quite fantastic!. Thank you to everyone I met for being so nice to me. It was really hard to leave the gathering at the Castle on Sunday evening. Would have loved to have stayed one more day. Wanting to hold on to what I experienced this weekend for as long as possible. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Streeter bill@ wrote: Yes it was a great event. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make it all work. It's always fun to get together with everyone. The thing that I really loved about this was it was all about the work--the end product of what we all do. Well done. I wish I could have seen all the programs but the ones I did catch were really fun. And nothing beats the experience of seeing this stuff in a real cinema environment with a bunch of people at the same time--just watching--with no interuptions. And thanks to everyone who came to my mashup screening. I was happy to see it so well attended. Hope you enjoyed it. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.billstreeter.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street tim@ wrote: Hey I only got to swing by to chat and scarf some free food and drinks for an hour or so on Sunday but I wanted to say thanks to Zadi Steve and Jay for helping the community and putting on such a great event at such a wonderful venue. I had to work most of the weekend so I didn't see a single session as I was too busy working the room when I was there but everyone I spoke with was really impressed with the Keynotes and the sessions. I also heard the parties were great and I saw some Twitters about a BBQ pool party with Jackson West and http://mickipedia.com/ that sounded like it would make a great session for next year. Thanks again and if anyone has any video video links from the sessions, please share.
[videoblogging] Re: camera advice
The Panasonic is a sweet camera and would be a great investment for more high-end video productions, but I don't see it as a practical choice for vlogging--it's not exactly the kind of take it anywhere camera (or at least I wouldn't feel comfortable using it that way). Same, really, with the XL-2. I have an XL-1, and I usually default to my little still camera that takes video rather than take that thing out for quick-and-dirty, out-in-public vlogging purposes. I also find the viewfinder on the XL-1 very difficult to position on my eye (perhaps because I'm left-eyed). The PD-170 seems to me a good compromise between a vlogging camera and video production camera (though the image isn't as nice as the other two, and its options are more limited). You've probably used these at school (NB: Josh is a former student of mine ;), and they do well as workhorse cameras that produce a decent image and give you sufficient control over the image. Really, it depends, I think, on how you want to use your camera as to which one is the best choice. Cheerio! Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, josheklow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm shopping around for a new camera for vlogging as well as other video projects. I've been looking at the Canon XL2, the Panasonic DVX100B, and the Sony PD170. I'm going to be trying these cameras out before I make any purchase, but I figured that this group would be a good source of advice on these or other cameras.
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
I echo all these points put forth by Adrian and Brook and Rupert. I'm often approached by filmmakers in my department (I'm a grad student in film) who are curious and interested in videoblogging, but lack the skills and time to devote to getting one up and running, and then maintaining it, especially while working on films for theatrical or festival release. I'm certainly neglecting my vlog while I finish a longer-form film. But there have certainly been some to make the leap--and I'll mention in particular one by fellow grad student Alexis Bravos here at the Univ. Of Iowa: http://www.postcardinwinter.blogspot.com/ Leighton Pierce, faculty in my department and a wonderful videomaker, has also created mobile versions of his work for iPod viewing on his website: http://leightonpierce.com (check these out!) But I'd like to add that for many filmmakers, especially of the experimental/fine art sort, the web still has an aura of lowbrow, opiate of the masses, low art type content, a space that television has occupied for a long time. As has been mentioned, I think many filmmakers fear losing respect or prestige or pride or whatever by placing in their work in the same venue as Jackass style YouTube videos and posts about kittens and puppies and whatnot (although I'm personally addicted to both). And there's always the concern that listing web video on your dossier simply doesn't hold the same weight as a festival screening or theatrical premiere. The professional/academic film worlds haven't quite caught up with the possibilities of the web, so festival and curated screenings generally still hold far more prestige than anything that can happen on the web. This is changing somewhat, now, but, like so many things outside of the web, the process is slow-going. That's my coupla cents. Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, there are quite a few filmmakers putting video online - but many more professional filmmakers don't use the web to distribute their work. i think what adrian said is true - but their rejection of it is more through a lack of understanding of the web and lack of tech skills than because of any preciousness, i think. In my experience, it's mostly because they don't use the web to watch films themselves, so they don't know what the possibilities are, and maybe most significantly they see a web audience as an unattractive Other. They assume people who watch video online are weirdos, techies, teenagers or bored office workers. They see what's on YouTube - the football clips or talking heads and think that's what people watch online and assume that they won't reach an audience who will commit to their story or piece. Also, they see the comments on YouTube and think, I don't want to subject my work to that kind of audience - they won't like/understand it. Then there are those who think How MANY people actually watch things online - apart from the odd lonelygirl15 or geriatric1927 who get lots of views... is it worth prioritising a small audience over the bigger theatrical audience I could get if i spent my evenings working on that script/film instead of trying to learn a whole new set of skills. And thus it's as much perceived technological barrier as an attitude barrier which keeps them away. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ On 21 Mar 2007, at 03:05, Brook Hinton wrote: Delurking to point out just a FEW of the MANY Filmmaker/Video Artists who Videoblog or Videoblogged or use video in their blogs, some of whom are right here in the videoblogging group: Aaron Valdez Abe Linkoln Matt McCormick Jonas Mekas (OK, it's not free but still, one of the grandfathers of experimental film for pete's sake!) Jennifer Proctor Miranda July Caveh Zahedi Charlene Rule Joshua Kanies Duncan Speakman Me the list goes on and on. these are just the names that came immediately to mind (and I'm really sorry to any of my own filmmaker friends not listed above - brain is sleep deprived at present). And there are dozens if not more who post what are absolutely works of cinema for the web in many of their videoblog entries, including pionner vloggers like Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson and Mica Scalin and others who may or may not call themselves filmmakers as well as videobloggers. Yes, there are HUGE HUGE HUGE and very real issues about posting your work online, esp. work that is intended for other venues, but after 30 minutes of trying to compose a post about all of that I realized it's not a post, it's an article, and I at least wanted to point out in light of the previous comments that we do exist. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text
[videoblogging] Lost in Light launches today!
Hi everyone, To bring in the new year, Aaron and I have officially launched Lost in Light, http://lostinlight.org! Thanks to everyone who contributed at Have Money Will Vlog and through generous comments and support. For those of you new to the project, Lost in Light is a Super 8/8mm film to video transfer service and videoblog devoted to all things related to 8mm film. We transfer 8mm movies to video for free, and post excerpts of the films to the site, as well as articles, creative work, and lots more info related to the preservation and continuation of the 8mm format. We also make many of the films we post available for Creative Commons based sharing and remixing. So, we're now ready to start accepting films for transfer! Ordering instructions are available on the site or at this link: http://lostinlight.org/free-film-transfers/. You can get a sense of the really excellent quality of the flickerless transfer from our first post of the year--an excerpt from one of Aaron's aunt's home movies from Christmas 1966. Have a fantastic new year! Jen Aaron http://lostinlight.org http://jenniferproctor.com http://aaronvaldez.com http://valdezatron.com
[videoblogging] Re: Playing around with 8mm
I'd highly recommend OnSuper8.org (http://homepage.mac.com/onsuper8/) as a fantastic resource for all things Super 8, including the stocks that are currently available and how to get started. Depending on the kind of stock you want, you can generally get a roll (50ft, which is about 3.5 minutes at 18 frames per second) for around $10-12, plus another $15 for processing plus shipping. You can order standard stock directly from Kodak. There are still plenty of labs that process the film--I recommend Yale in LA for b/w and ektachrome (http://www.yalefilmandvideo.com/) and Dwayne's in Kansas still processes Kodachrome if you can get your hands on it (http://www.k14movies.com/). For getting started with Super 8, I'd suggest not spending more than $30-40 on a camera. I'd stick with metal, rather than plastic, cameras--some reliable brands are Bell Howell, Yashica (my favorite) and Bolex. I've gotten fantastic cameras at that price from eBay. Also make sure the camera is clean, especially the battery area. I'd also avoid too many bells and whistles--more chances for stuff to break (or have already broken). If you need more info, feel free to email me offlist: proctor.jennifer(at)gmail(dot)com. I definitely recommend shooting Super 8, if you can get past the cost and the slight learning curve! Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'll have better luck finding Super 8 film stock than standard 8mm or double 8. I haven't priced it in a while, but you'll need both a place you can buy the film and also a lab to process it. Luckily, it looks like there's good online community for Super 8, mail order labs, etc. I'm seeing websites listing processing costs of maybe $20/roll. I just have to kinda figure out where everything's coming from and set up a test shoot. Film can be fun, but it's also a bit more complicated and much-much more expensive than digital video. Yeah...I priced doing 16mm film once and couldn't believe the expenses that indie filmmakers are taking on themselves. I'd never consider film as a digital video replacement. At the same time, though, if you're looking into doing a music video for a female singer-songwriter, I can't imagine anything that will impart that forlorn artist girl feel quite like having some cuts done on something like 8mm film. Hopefully, it's not too different from working with a Pentax SLR camera, just that you don't use it for stills. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime - This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
