It's a full time living for quite a few people:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/media/11youtube.html
I'm not quite there yet, but there's always hope!
Yep, this is the article that everyone points to:
YouTube declined to comment on how much money partners earned on average,
partly
I was spending 40 hours a week on YouTube for over a year before I made a
dime, Mr. Buckley said
We wanted to turn these hobbies into businesses, said Hunter Walk, a
director of product management for the site, who called popular users like
Mr. Buckley unintentional media companies.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote:
So instead of relying on free commercial hosting sites, you'd have
control. Not sure if many people want this control though. Youtube
makes it so easy. Plus some people seem to actually be making money
from Adsense
On 10 Feb 2010, at 23:57, David Jones wrote:
Sure, but that whole argument is such a big red herring and so
entirely beside the point it's not funny!
His argument was not beside the point. It was about people using
videoblogging for more than talking to the camera. Which is what
quite a
Dave you seem to have a lot of respect in this group so i'll refrain from
ripping you a new one wink and just say this.
If you bothered to read my original post before getting your pompous high and
might knickers in a twist you'd have noticed that I too share this marvelous
thing you call
hi all
On 11/02/2010, at 8:13 PM, adammerc...@att.net wrote:
Also there is the question of bandwidth and I've had this argument
with several people, and I'm often in the minority. But i believe my
position so I stand by it. Bandwidth is not free, contrary to
popular opinion. Someone
Good story :)
I used this argument last time we had the HD discussion - it died
without comment, except from Adam.
Apart from the waste of energy unnecessary cost that someone will
have to pick up somewhere, we *will* face repercussions from
unnecessary use of huge HD video files.
Cisco
My ISP here in our London office has started throttling our ADSL
broadband - presumably because we use lots of video. Upload speeds
have died - it took me 45 minutes to upload a 30mb video yesterday.
welcome to the Australian way..
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hi Rupert
On 11/02/2010, at 9:36 PM, Rupert Howe wrote:
Certainly, in my book this is another big reason why it's not OK to
tell people they shouldn't be shooting in low resolutions. If you
don't need to use HD (and why do you need to use HD for personal /
family videoblogging like Adam I
Actually if you use older camera technology and go above 320x240 then you are
at risk of running into interlacing issues. This isnt a problem if your editing
encoding software can deinterlace and you understand the issue, but certainly
when vloggers first started experimenting with 640x480 I
Originally (2006) I produced videos 320x240 @15fps. I was more conscious 4
years ago about file size. I imagined Blip blowing up with files being anything
larger. :)
Since then I've settled in on 480x272 as my standard output rez (16:9).
If I have 4:3 video I'll normally output to 480x360.
I
Originally (2006) I produced videos 320x240 @15fps. I was more conscious 4
years ago about file size. I imagined Blip blowing up with files being
anything larger. :)
Since then I've settled in on 480x272 as my standard output rez (16:9).
If I have 4:3 video I'll normally output to 480x360.
I would guess that its partly the extra work the publisher has to go through
like you say, but also some other technical issues to do with how the plugin
works in practice, along with whatever the story is regarding what happened to
ShowInABox and other video module plugins that it tried to
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:13 PM, adammerc...@att.net
adammerc...@att.net wrote:
Dave you seem to have a lot of respect in this group
I doubt it, I'm pretty much a newbie. I'm just loud and say what I
think, and well, some people don't like that. They don't like to hear
differing opinions to
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote:
That being said, David's work at http://www.eevblog.com/ is extremely
appealing to a very specific group of people. Someone who likes to
take apart electronics will wait to download the HD version if that's
their only
OK, this is my last post on this subject, because you haven't engaged
with any of my arguments.
But I must point out that you've changed your opinion from the
statement that started all this in the first place.
You just said to Adam:
Once again, I was speaking about low res in general, not
HD is not their only choice.
I use an embedded YouTube player which defaults to 360p, the user must then
manually chose 480p or 720p if they way higher res. If they subscribe to my
podcast with iTunes or whatever they get a
separate 480x272 version.
About half my audience subscribe and
If only YouTube offered uploading of custom thumnails and more options for
branding and player customization. Just having 3 thumbnails to choose from is
silly. Blip.TV doesn't have the same quality of flash embeds, but its
features still win out for me over YouTube. YouTube does have better
I would guess that its partly the extra work the publisher has to go through
like you say, but also some other technical issues to do with how the plugin
works in practice, along with whatever the story is regarding what happened
to ShowInABox and other video module plugins that it tried to
TOTALLY disagree, but you know this already from earlier discussions.
You are doing a very different kind of videoblog from what most people
do - it's great that you love doing it in HD, but I really really
strongly disagree that Any video blogger who is filming and/or
uploading in
hi all
absolutely disagree.
On 10/02/2010, at 6:49 PM, David Jones wrote:
If you follow that logic to its logical conclusion, then why have a
video blog at all?, why not just an audio podcast?
Or at least why not 160x120 for even more bandwidth saving and speed?
if you follow that logic to
Hi Dave,
What $400 cam did you buy? Curious that's all.
Tom
On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:49 PM, David Jones wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM, adammerc...@att.net
adammerc...@att.net wrote:
Call me old school, but I still publish my vlog in 320x240. For a
couple of reasons. My old Flip
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dave,
What $400 cam did you buy? Curious that's all.
Sanyo Xacti HD1010
It's been discussed on here many times now.
Dave.
Thanx.
Tom
On Feb 10, 2010, at 1:37 PM, David Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Dave,
What $400 cam did you buy? Curious that's all.
Sanyo Xacti HD1010
It's been discussed on here many times now.
Dave.
Tom Dolan
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote:
hi all
absolutely disagree.
On 10/02/2010, at 6:49 PM, David Jones wrote:
If you follow that logic to its logical conclusion, then why have a
video blog at all?, why not just an audio podcast?
Or at least
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au wrote:
if you follow that logic to its logical conclusion then why be online
at all and instead be in a cinema, or project via some hi-rez system
against a wall in an installation?
Because online is the distribution medium
Call me old school, but I still publish my vlog in 320x240. For a couple of
reasons. My old Flip shoots at 640x480 and at the native size its pretty
crummy. Scaled to quarter screen it tightens up and cleans up the noise
considerably.
Also theres nothing in my vlog that needs to be seen at HD
No - you're right - Blip have earned loyalty with great features
service. Despite earlier praise for YT, I can see myself continuing
to use Blip for personal videoblogging.
But according to their ToS, they prohibit pretty much any commercial
use that's not creation of a Show:
Content
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM, adammerc...@att.net
adammerc...@att.net wrote:
Call me old school, but I still publish my vlog in 320x240. For a couple of
reasons. My old Flip shoots at 640x480 and at the native size its pretty
crummy. Scaled to quarter screen it tightens up and cleans up
Oh, I just had to comment on this, for me I will always use Blip as long as
they are around and as long as they contiue to provide the excellent customer
service they have been known for. A few different reasons why, one - when all
the other video sites, including YT had crappy TOS's, crappy
the bad old days of dial-up when to view videos you had to download them or
watch streaming video at 160x120
cell/mobile phone record video at 320x240
320x240 is still being used if the upload from you home-server is substandarded
like in australia :(
tom
--- In
To be honest I dont remember computers choking on 320x240 4 years ago. I know
that around 5 years ago when Apple put some 720p H.264 videos on their website
quite a lot of computers struggled to handle it.
I guess bandwidth and procesing power are still issues, which along with device
32 matches
Mail list logo
