[videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution
Chuck Olsen did a documentary about it called Blogumentary, he published it for free at least here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8920472176280937346. Not a bad place to start and I get a small appearence on it ;). Miguel. Hello, First of all I would like to apologize for my English, which is not very good. Secondly, I would like to introduce myself: I am a student from Lithuania (Europe), my name is Gintaras (in English - amberman ;D). I am a final course student at Vilnius University, communication faculty and writing the final course paper about blogging evolution (from blog, to micro blog). The theme also includes video blog, that's why I write here, and have a question: Are there in this group any posts or links to the sources where I could find historical events in video blogging? I tried google'ing, but the most valuable source as I have found is - Jay Dedman's videoblogging book, where, however, I missed history (detailed) chapter... I would be very grateful if you could show me the direction where I could look for further reading, because, sadly, in scientific course papers (like mine), I cannot use unreliable information sources, such as blogs like http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-perso\ nal-history-of-videoblogging Peter Van's http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-perso\ nal-history-of-videoblogging#comments;/ Thank you very much. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video blogging history/evolution
Are there in this group any posts or links to the sources where I could find historical events in video blogging? I tried google'ing, but the most valuable source as I have found is - Jay Dedman's videoblogging book, where, however, I missed history (detailed) chapter... I would be very grateful if you could show me the direction where I could look for further reading, because, sadly, in scientific course papers (like mine), I cannot use unreliable information sources, such as blogs like http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-perso\ nal-history-of-videoblogging Peter Van's http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-perso\ nal-history-of-videoblogging#comments ;/ Unfortunately, reliability has been a point of contention. Some in this group may remember the dramedy trying to write the wikipedia page for videoblogging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoblogging Newspapers/magazines must write about it for it to be reliable. Makes a certain kind of sense. You got to capture the mainstream to be recognized. It's like a vetting process. Ive also learned that the history of videoblogging is wide and varied depending on what community you look at. This group has its own specific timeline that differs from people who began through Youtube exclusively. I can scan the chapter I wrote in my book if you'd like and email it to you. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Videoblogging Week 2009
For this year's VBW I will be un-vloggingwhat is un-vlogging you ask...you will see... Heath http://heathparks.com/blog1 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo josh...@... wrote: Here is the info! VBW is in it's 6th year! http://videobloggingweek2009.blogspot.com/ April 5-11 Please join in! -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.ultrakawaii.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com www.SlowLorisMedia.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, miglsd27 mig...@... wrote: Chuck Olsen did a documentary about it called Blogumentary, he published it for free at least here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8920472176280937346. Not a bad place to start and I get a small appearence on it ;). Miguel. Thank you, for your reply. I have just finished watching the video (by the way, saw you!), and I think that it will help me, when I will be writing citizen journalism chapter...however, video was very interesting to watch...thanks again ;)
Re: [videoblogging] Video blogging history/evolution
I did a thing on history of video blogging for the Association of Internet Researchers meeting ... http://richardshow.org/show/vloghistory/ Also, this is a video of my power points at a presentation I did at an apple store in chicago as one of the meet the vloggers things. It has info on the history of the yahoo group http://richardshow.org/vlog/mtv_05_11_19.mov ... Richard On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, gintaras.miskinis gintaras.miski...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, First of all I would like to apologize for my English, which is not very good. Secondly, I would like to introduce myself: I am a student from Lithuania (Europe), my name is Gintaras (in English - amberman ;D). I am a final course student at Vilnius University, communication faculty and writing the final course paper about blogging evolution (from blog, to micro blog). The theme also includes video blog, that's why I write here, and have a question: Are there in this group any posts or links to the sources where I could find historical events in video blogging? I tried google'ing, but the most valuable source as I have found is - Jay Dedman's videoblogging book, where, however, I missed history (detailed) chapter... I would be very grateful if you could show me the direction where I could look for further reading, because, sadly, in scientific course papers (like mine), I cannot use unreliable information sources, such as blogs like http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-perso\ nal-history-of-videoblogginghttp://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-personal-history-of-videoblogging Peter Van's http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-perso\ nal-history-of-videoblogging#commentshttp://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2007/01/27/3465/a-brief-and-personal-history-of-videoblogging#comments ;/ Thank you very much. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: Unfortunately, reliability has been a point of contention. Some in this group may remember the dramedy trying to write the wikipedia page for videoblogging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoblogging Newspapers/magazines must write about it for it to be reliable. Makes a certain kind of sense. You got to capture the mainstream to be recognized. It's like a vetting process. Ive also learned that the history of videoblogging is wide and varied depending on what community you look at. This group has its own specific timeline that differs from people who began through Youtube exclusively. I can scan the chapter I wrote in my book if you'd like and email it to you. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Thank you for your reply too. It's an honor for me to be contacted from the book author :) I made some thinking after I had read your shared thoughts and just have to agree: it is sad, that sources, which are not mainstream, cannot be trusted..well, officially. But on the other hand, a year ago, when I was writing a term paper about video blogging evolution I used your mentioned wikipedia link, and this year, I thought that I could use my a year ago written info in the final paper, and when rechecked wikipedia - saw, that most of the facts where different then I had found a year ago...it was experience from practical side on my own.. What connects to YouTube community, I think that those who started blogging didn't feel the real joy of the video blogging start, like felt you people (I guess), who had began from technical issues, and ending with philosophical. In a sense, Youtubers' generation had everything put on the plate.. However, I would be very grateful if you could scan your mentioned chapter and send it to me (to this yahoo mail if possible). You would help me a lot. Thanks again and sorry for my English.
[videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard (Show) Hall rich...@... wrote: I did a thing on history of video blogging for the Association of Internet Researchers meeting ... http://richardshow.org/show/vloghistory/ Also, this is a video of my power points at a presentation I did at an apple store in chicago as one of the meet the vloggers things. It has info on the history of the yahoo group http://richardshow.org/vlog/mtv_05_11_19.mov ... Richard -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Thank you for your links, I think that I will have to persuade my final paper's chief, that simply there are no sources (books), that describe video blogging history in very detail, and I think, that I will get a permission to use ordinary people experience's (who were there when video blogging phenomena was born) as a source...thanks!
[videoblogging] REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
Isn't it a bit of an oversimplification to say H.264 is universally better than .flv? Because I've seen situations where .flv is both better quality AND smaller file size than H.264 (using the same parameters). For example, some of the videos I post are filmed from the back of a moving Vespa. With the background changing constantly and quickly, I make use of the auto keyframe feature in Sorenson Squeeze which inserts keyframes when needed rather than simply at a fixed interval. With that feature turned on, my (On2 VP6) .flv video is both better quality and smaller file size than the equivalent video in H.264. So is it better to say that video quality depends on how your encoding application handles content, rather than on the codec used? - Warren Schirtzinger http://www.vespadiaries.com/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelve...@... wrote: Yes, the quality of H.264 is better (especially dual-pass) at the same bitrate as a VP6 .flv. Also, most encoding applications will let you limit the bitrate to whatever you want. Want 512kbps? Just set it to 512. Here's a recent video I did encoded at 732kbps (including 128kbps audio). It's 640x360, 24fps. http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2009/03/10/hanging-out/ The cool thing is that it plays in a flash player on the site, works on an iPod/iPhone and is just one file. - Verdi On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones shir...@... wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: Verdi wrote a post about this here: http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/03/16/flash-h264/ Jay The video in the post looks great, but it is encoded at about 1100kbps and I try to keep my Flash videos at a bitrate of 512 kbs in order to accommodate progressive downloading for DSL users. Am I being too conservative? Is the quality of H.264 better at the same bitrate as .FLV file? It seems as if the market penetration of FLASH players able to play .MOV files is fairly complete. Does this mean the end of FLASH videos? Stan Hirson http://PinePlainsViews.com http://LifeWithHorses.com -- http://michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution
2 or 3 years ago i made a graph here http://www.flickr.com/photos/loiezd/2068174027/sizes/o/ For people of East Europe the Vlogeurope group is also a good history http://www.vlogeurope.com/blog/ Have a nice day all Loiez
Re: [videoblogging] REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
well, now you also have adobe f4v using h264 codec. On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:06 PM, quietleader war...@schirtzinger.comwrote: Isn't it a bit of an oversimplification to say H.264 is universally better than .flv? Because I've seen situations where .flv is both better quality AND smaller file size than H.264 (using the same parameters). For example, some of the videos I post are filmed from the back of a moving Vespa. With the background changing constantly and quickly, I make use of the auto keyframe feature in Sorenson Squeeze which inserts keyframes when needed rather than simply at a fixed interval. With that feature turned on, my (On2 VP6) .flv video is both better quality and smaller file size than the equivalent video in H.264. So is it better to say that video quality depends on how your encoding application handles content, rather than on the codec used? - Warren Schirtzinger http://www.vespadiaries.com/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelve...@... wrote: Yes, the quality of H.264 is better (especially dual-pass) at the same bitrate as a VP6 .flv. Also, most encoding applications will let you limit the bitrate to whatever you want. Want 512kbps? Just set it to 512. Here's a recent video I did encoded at 732kbps (including 128kbps audio). It's 640x360, 24fps. http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2009/03/10/hanging-out/ The cool thing is that it plays in a flash player on the site, works on an iPod/iPhone and is just one file. - Verdi On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones shir...@... wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: Verdi wrote a post about this here: http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/03/16/flash-h264/ Jay The video in the post looks great, but it is encoded at about 1100kbps and I try to keep my Flash videos at a bitrate of 512 kbs in order to accommodate progressive downloading for DSL users. Am I being too conservative? Is the quality of H.264 better at the same bitrate as .FLV file? It seems as if the market penetration of FLASH players able to play .MOV files is fairly complete. Does this mean the end of FLASH videos? Stan Hirson http://PinePlainsViews.com http://LifeWithHorses.com -- http://michaelverdi.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
My 2 tips for promoting h264 format are: Have it playable via a flash player embedded in the page, so users dont even need to know its an mp4 (others have already discussed this) Dont make the h264 file a .mov or a .m4v or a .f4v. Make it a .mp4 because this has the widest sounding compatibility with the widest range of software and hardware. In practice this is not quite true yet, and certain users may be more comfortable with a proprietary extension (eg .m4v defaults to being loaded by itunes), and many devices can handle .mov as well as .mp4. But certainly .mov has negative connotations for some windows users who may associate it strongly with quicktime which they may not like. Windows 7 will have h264 support built in as far as I know, and I assume this will gradually lead to much greater consumer awareness of having their h264 videos as .mp4. Or at least .movs will lose their negative quicktime link if windows media player handles .mov h264 out of the box too. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan sullele...@... wrote: well, now you also have adobe f4v using h264 codec.
[videoblogging] Re: REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
Its both, the codec and the encoder and settings. h264 isnt perfect, but a better h264 encoder could give a better result for your scenario. Likewise when Apple first started promoting h264, some people who had ben using older mpeg4 were not blown away, because they had been using a really good mpeg4 encoder alled 3ivx which was pretty good quality, so it seemed like there was less of a leap between mpeg4 and h264 for them, than those who had only been using lesser mpeg4 encoders like the default quicktime one. If your videos are for viewing in browser and not for download, I cant think of many disadvantages to using .flv if it gives results you are happy with. h264 scores more points when device compatibility is factored in. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, quietleader war...@... wrote: So is it better to say that video quality depends on how your encoding application handles content, rather than on the codec used? - Warren Schirtzinger http://www.vespadiaries.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
great posts, mr elbows. i agree about naming files .mp4 rather than mov or m4v. yeah, i was very happy with 3ivx so it took me a while to get excited about h264 for videoblogging. Looking back at my posts from 2005 recently, I saw that I seemed to get insanely low file sizes with 3ivx. admittedly they were 320x240 but there wasn't much noticeable pixellation or loss of detail. and looking at my workingformydad.com wmv files that i made with my webcam back in 2003, they were mostly 200-800kb for 30 seconds to 1 minute. not much different in quality to my nokia mp4 files, really, but about 10 times smaller. wmv ftw. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 31-Mar-09, at 1:24 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Its both, the codec and the encoder and settings. h264 isnt perfect, but a better h264 encoder could give a better result for your scenario. Likewise when Apple first started promoting h264, some people who had ben using older mpeg4 were not blown away, because they had been using a really good mpeg4 encoder alled 3ivx which was pretty good quality, so it seemed like there was less of a leap between mpeg4 and h264 for them, than those who had only been using lesser mpeg4 encoders like the default quicktime one. If your videos are for viewing in browser and not for download, I cant think of many disadvantages to using .flv if it gives results you are happy with. h264 scores more points when device compatibility is factored in. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, quietleader war...@... wrote: So is it better to say that video quality depends on how your encoding application handles content, rather than on the codec used? - Warren Schirtzinger http://www.vespadiaries.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
Cheers :) Apart from how good/efficient the formats you used to use were, there are a couple of other reasons for what you've noticed: People were more conservative about filesizes in the past, you could force h264 to use a lower bitrate and get results that are smaller without too much loss of detail, depending on what your content consists of, especialy talking heads with static background. Devices that record encode in realtime will never achieve the same quality/filesize optimisation as multi-pass encoding can. The first pass gives the encoder information about where it can skimp on the bitrate, hence filesize, giving an advantage.Realtime recording devices dont have that luxury. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rup...@... wrote: great posts, mr elbows. i agree about naming files .mp4 rather than mov or m4v. yeah, i was very happy with 3ivx so it took me a while to get excited about h264 for videoblogging. Looking back at my posts from 2005 recently, I saw that I seemed to get insanely low file sizes with 3ivx. admittedly they were 320x240 but there wasn't much noticeable pixellation or loss of detail. and looking at my workingformydad.com wmv files that i made with my webcam back in 2003, they were mostly 200-800kb for 30 seconds to 1 minute. not much different in quality to my nokia mp4 files, really, but about 10 times smaller. wmv ftw.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
Aha - yes, I see. On 31-Mar-09, at 2:05 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Devices that record encode in realtime will never achieve the same quality/filesize optimisation as multi-pass encoding can. The first pass gives the encoder information about where it can skimp on the bitrate, hence filesize, giving an advantage.Realtime recording devices dont have that luxury. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
I haven't done this in a while: http://michaelverdi.com/h264/ Here's one video encoded at 4 different sizes bit-rate combinations. The point is that you can make videos any size you want by limiting the bit-rate and other parameters. H.264 is particularly nice in that it's really efficient, i.e. better quality at a given bit-rate, from dialup to HD. - Verdi On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: Aha - yes, I see. On 31-Mar-09, at 2:05 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Devices that record encode in realtime will never achieve the same quality/filesize optimisation as multi-pass encoding can. The first pass gives the encoder information about where it can skimp on the bitrate, hence filesize, giving an advantage.Realtime recording devices dont have that luxury. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] REPLY: Promoting the .mov option online
do you mean when you also turn auto keyframes on in QuickTime rather than manual keyframes you get better and smaller using flv? Or are you comparing auto keyframes to manual keyframes? On 01/04/2009, at 6:06 AM, quietleader wrote: For example, some of the videos I post are filmed from the back of a moving Vespa. With the background changing constantly and quickly, I make use of the auto keyframe feature in Sorenson Squeeze which inserts keyframes when needed rather than simply at a fixed interval. With that feature turned on, my (On2 VP6) .flv video is both better quality and smaller file size than the equivalent video in H.264. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
