Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Best Windows-Based Skype Audio Recorder?
Hi folks, I know that some of you have used Skype in the past to record video and audio interviews. I am looking for opinions on what you think the best Skype audio recording software is. I found this and wondered if anyone has used it? http://callgraph.in/ Thanks for your opinions:) Adam W. Warner http://indielab.org http://wordpressmodder.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Assistive Hiking Experiment
Your uncle liked what? Richard Amirault My uncle, who's in a wheelchair, liked the video in general. Specifically the sound of footsteps and breathing as one hikes through the woods, which is something he doesn't experience. And the sound of the last shot on top of the mountain. He said he hasn't heard the sound one hears when they are at the top of a mountain since his accident decades ago. I never thought much about it, but the soundscape on a mountain top is very different from most of our normal lives. There's not much sound bouncing around off nearby objects, and the wind can be heard often as a far off suggestion of wind and then gusts close by. ~ ~ Caleb J. Clark ~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com ~ The problem with communication is the assumption it has been accomplished. - G. B. Shaw. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Assistive Hiking Experiment
I loved the audio track. How did you capture such great sound? Lisa On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Caleb J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brought a camera/monopod along for a hike recently. My uncle is in a wheelchair and I guess I was thinking of him not being able to hike, or those in the city. HiRes 800bps/30fps Flash: http://www.techtrek.tv HiRes h.264 2000bps/30fps. http://blip.tv/file/1133050?filename=Techtrek-E17NorthPackMonadnockMountainExperimentInVirtualHiking595.mov My uncle liked it, he said the sound at the top of the mountain was the best. It's much different then the sounds he's heard for most of his life. There's a sense of height and far off wind that he said he could feel even after all the added noise and such from the mics/compression/output, etc.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I think its more on the point that many dont bittorrent as opposed to not wanting to talk about the content of the video. Even friends who I personally sent the torrent to before I posted it here have just got around to see it. On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I'm in total agreement with you, Brook. The idea behind Moneythong is not too neccesarily have gazillions of people downloading, but really I'm thinking of it as a video store on the corner of your block ( like Lost Weekend or Mondo Video) where you can hopefully find recommended torrents/videos you may have not heard about. Like that store filled with VHS tapes that never made it to DVD. Once you try out a couple vids, you may come back for likeminded art. On 8/5/08, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat
[videoblogging] Rocketboom and Sony
Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10007032-36.html? tag=cnetfd.blogs.item Sony Pictures Television has signed a distribution deal with pioneering Web series Rocketboom, which has been producing a quirky daily newscast since 2004. Under the terms of the agreement--which reports pin in the seven figures--Sony will handle all distribution and ad sales, as well as use its Crackle.com player on the Rocketboom.com Web site. (Until this point, Rocketboom has used a YouTube embed on its home page.) It'll also see additional distribution on Sony's network, which includes the PlayStation 3 console. Sony bought Crackle, then known as Grouper, back in 2006. Created by entrepreneur Andrew Baron, Rocketboom rose to fame with actress Amanda Congdon as host, but she left the show on unfavorable terms in 2006 and has since struggled to find a new niche in online media. Congdon's replacement, Joanne Colan, is still at the helm. In a post on his blog, Baron explained why he chose to seek a distributor (a rarity in the Web video world) rather than raising the money through a venture round: he didn't want to sell out. Mentioning venture-funded video start-ups like Revision3 and Next New Networks, he wrote, While these networks have provided immense value for the growing transitioning space, they are all controlled now by venture capitalists which tend to have as their primary objective, a sale. Baron added that it often hasn't helped the quality. Aside from the hit shows which have spawned the networks, most of the other shows on these networks have not lived up to their predecessors, content-wise, and new shows are often canceled soon after they are launched. Indeed, Revision3 and Next New Networks have both seen new programs debut only to peter out after only a few episodes--something that a major TV network can handle, but which can be a serious wound for a video start-up. Instead of gaining capital to burn while continuing to build or seek an advertising solution, we now have one of the most prominent advertising solutions out there, Baron wrote, along with increased distribution, a road map for expansion and a guarantee that I believe is an unprecedented deal for this space. What he was saying, albeit obliquely, is that Rocketboom did need a leg up. As more and more early Web video shows have either faded away (Lonelygirl15 just ended its run, and The Burg's creators ended the project to collaborate on a new show backed by former Disney chief Michael Eisner) or acquired (Wallstrip was bought by CBS Interactive, and Revision3 now syndicates Wine Library and Epic Fu) remaining indie operations need to stay afloat. Sony can provide Rocketboom with better exposure as well as a more streamlined advertising operation. Baron is no stranger to shaking things up, having catalyzed one of the blogosphere's most navel-gazing debates when he briefly put his Twitter account up for sale on eBay.
[videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
WooT!! :D Congrats to Drew, Kenyatta, Ellie, Jamie, Joanne Sarah! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10007032-36.html? tag=cnetfd.blogs.item Sony Pictures Television has signed a distribution deal with pioneering Web series Rocketboom, which has been producing a quirky daily newscast since 2004. Under the terms of the agreement--which reports pin in the seven figures--Sony will handle all distribution and ad sales, as well as use its Crackle.com player on the Rocketboom.com Web site. (Until this point, Rocketboom has used a YouTube embed on its home page.) It'll also see additional distribution on Sony's network, which includes the PlayStation 3 console. Sony bought Crackle, then known as Grouper, back in 2006. Created by entrepreneur Andrew Baron, Rocketboom rose to fame with actress Amanda Congdon as host, but she left the show on unfavorable terms in 2006 and has since struggled to find a new niche in online media. Congdon's replacement, Joanne Colan, is still at the helm. In a post on his blog, Baron explained why he chose to seek a distributor (a rarity in the Web video world) rather than raising the money through a venture round: he didn't want to sell out. Mentioning venture-funded video start-ups like Revision3 and Next New Networks, he wrote, While these networks have provided immense value for the growing transitioning space, they are all controlled now by venture capitalists which tend to have as their primary objective, a sale. Baron added that it often hasn't helped the quality. Aside from the hit shows which have spawned the networks, most of the other shows on these networks have not lived up to their predecessors, content-wise, and new shows are often canceled soon after they are launched. Indeed, Revision3 and Next New Networks have both seen new programs debut only to peter out after only a few episodes--something that a major TV network can handle, but which can be a serious wound for a video start-up. Instead of gaining capital to burn while continuing to build or seek an advertising solution, we now have one of the most prominent advertising solutions out there, Baron wrote, along with increased distribution, a road map for expansion and a guarantee that I believe is an unprecedented deal for this space. What he was saying, albeit obliquely, is that Rocketboom did need a leg up. As more and more early Web video shows have either faded away (Lonelygirl15 just ended its run, and The Burg's creators ended the project to collaborate on a new show backed by former Disney chief Michael Eisner) or acquired (Wallstrip was bought by CBS Interactive, and Revision3 now syndicates Wine Library and Epic Fu) remaining indie operations need to stay afloat. Sony can provide Rocketboom with better exposure as well as a more streamlined advertising operation. Baron is no stranger to shaking things up, having catalyzed one of the blogosphere's most navel-gazing debates when he briefly put his Twitter account up for sale on eBay.
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Hello Brook, my experience has been that if you treat your audience like they're a bunch of youtube using babies who can't figure anything out, then that's the audience you get. To get a quality audience you need to make demands of them. My latest video is a 39 minute, 700 meg monster. I made a promo on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxyOO200ho As a result, I've sent over 200 emails in the past week. And the video has been downloaded over 100 times. It may seem a little disappointing, considering the promo has received over one thousand views. But responding to people individually has given me a concept of scale. 100 people is a crowd. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email address. Anybody else who wants it can write [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think underground video has the potential to become a wild beast. A longer format. More like an album. Hope you enjoy it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
Ditto! I am impressed Andrew. Nice work indeed. Maybe you can come and participate in / cover Podcamp Hawaii?? We'd love to have you and there are plenty of edgy topics here in paradise (not known to the mainstream) that you all could chew on I am certain. http://www.podcamphawaii.com Aloha, Roxanne On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WooT!! :D Congrats to Drew, Kenyatta, Ellie, Jamie, Joanne Sarah! :D Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10007032-36.html? tag=cnetfd.blogs.item Sony Pictures Television has signed a distribution deal with pioneering Web series Rocketboom, which has been producing a quirky daily newscast since 2004. Under the terms of the agreement--which reports pin in the seven figures--Sony will handle all distribution and ad sales, as well as use its Crackle.com player on the Rocketboom.com Web site. (Until this point, Rocketboom has used a YouTube embed on its home page.) It'll also see additional distribution on Sony's network, which includes the PlayStation 3 console. Sony bought Crackle, then known as Grouper, back in 2006. Created by entrepreneur Andrew Baron, Rocketboom rose to fame with actress Amanda Congdon as host, but she left the show on unfavorable terms in 2006 and has since struggled to find a new niche in online media. Congdon's replacement, Joanne Colan, is still at the helm. In a post on his blog, Baron explained why he chose to seek a distributor (a rarity in the Web video world) rather than raising the money through a venture round: he didn't want to sell out. Mentioning venture-funded video start-ups like Revision3 and Next New Networks, he wrote, While these networks have provided immense value for the growing transitioning space, they are all controlled now by venture capitalists which tend to have as their primary objective, a sale. Baron added that it often hasn't helped the quality. Aside from the hit shows which have spawned the networks, most of the other shows on these networks have not lived up to their predecessors, content-wise, and new shows are often canceled soon after they are launched. Indeed, Revision3 and Next New Networks have both seen new programs debut only to peter out after only a few episodes--something that a major TV network can handle, but which can be a serious wound for a video start-up. Instead of gaining capital to burn while continuing to build or seek an advertising solution, we now have one of the most prominent advertising solutions out there, Baron wrote, along with increased distribution, a road map for expansion and a guarantee that I believe is an unprecedented deal for this space. What he was saying, albeit obliquely, is that Rocketboom did need a leg up. As more and more early Web video shows have either faded away (Lonelygirl15 just ended its run, and The Burg's creators ended the project to collaborate on a new show backed by former Disney chief Michael Eisner) or acquired (Wallstrip was bought by CBS Interactive, and Revision3 now syndicates Wine Library and Epic Fu) remaining indie operations need to stay afloat. Sony can provide Rocketboom with better exposure as well as a more streamlined advertising operation. Baron is no stranger to shaking things up, having catalyzed one of the blogosphere's most navel-gazing debates when he briefly put his Twitter account up for sale on eBay. -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: H264 encoded movies
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When will the players from blip.tv or vimeo.com will natively support H.264 content? They have been promising it for ages but what's holding them? The file size of H.264 video is way smaller too compared to Quicktime/WMV. Anyone has any info on this? I emailed your question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] they sent me back this response: Hi, We are currently working on that feature right now. When the feature is released, it will be documented on our blog at http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Thanks, Carey -- Blip.tv Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: H264 encoded movies
Fwiw, Episodic supports H.264 natively. -noam www.episodic.com On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED]innomind%40gmail.com wrote: When will the players from blip.tv or vimeo.com will natively support H.264 content? They have been promising it for ages but what's holding them? The file size of H.264 video is way smaller too compared to Quicktime/WMV. Anyone has any info on this? I emailed your question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] blip%40support.com. they sent me back this response: Hi, We are currently working on that feature right now. When the feature is released, it will be documented on our blog at http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Thanks, Carey -- Blip.tv Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] support%40blip.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the giants who fell. It was a revolution right? So why is it that unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term? I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the way the market works. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
All right, you bastards, here it is. Videoblogging is my hobby. I'll never make any money out of it. When I lived in London, people used to hire me to make videos for their companies because I was one of the only people there who had a videoblog. But that's not the same thing. And now I live somewhere much cheaper, I don't have to do that anymore, and it's a relief. I can concentrate on my own stuff. Without worrying about how it's going to pay. The reason John's so pissed off is because he thought making videos was going to change something in his life, make him money, change the media landscape. And then he sat through that Keynote at Pixelodeon. So did I. Halfway through, the person sitting next to me turned their laptop screen black and wrote in large red letters I WANT TO DIE. The point is, if you want money, you have to ask yourself who's going to pay you. Follow The Money. Consumers haven't paid directly for media for a long time. No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching loneliness, senility and death. Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. So - the only people who are going to pay you are advertisers. If your 'content' doesn't fit with what they want, then fuck you, you won't get paid. Fuck you? Fuck me. Fuck them. My 'content' is *never* going to fit with them. So I never ever expect to get paid. Unless I change what I do. Which I'm not going to. Almost all of the 60 or so videoblogs I subscribe to are produced for nothing. It doesn't cost anything to produce them. I'm producing my stuff for nothing, too. Except my time. Why on earth should anybody else pay me for my hobby time? You want a hobby that makes money? You picked the wrong one. There's too many cutthroat professionals making media that's tailor made to make money. Go learn how to carve arty dollshouse furniture. Too expensive to live in the city and make art/indulge your hobby? You have to spend all your time working? Move somewhere less expensive. Can't? Well - that's either your unavoidable circumstance that has nothing to do with web video, or it's your *choice* of priorities. Who said that advertisers should spend their money on something they have no interest in so that you can have it all? That MBP you just bought or want - that HD cam - are they really the basic tools for your art? Pissed off that 30 million people have watched French Maid TV and only 250,000 have watched yours? Who's wrong - the 29,750,000 people who chose not to watch you, or you? Want to be loved by those 29,750,000 people? Make French Maid TV. If I put a massive amount of effort and discipline and thought and resources into making a long film, then I'd think about whether I want to get something in return. And if I did, I would make some efforts to Follow The Money, to think about HOW to get something in return. But probably I'd just do it in my spare time, without expecting anything in return. So that I didn't have to Follow The Money. Because we can do that now. THAT'S the fucking revolution, people. That we don't HAVE to be paid. The making of the thing doesn't COST anything. When I started making 16mm films, they were seen by hardly any people at festivals and cost thousands of dollars to make in rental and processing costs. Now I make better stuff on my free-with-my- contract phone for hardly anything except time, and it's seen by thousands. Everything else is bullshit. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 3:53 AM, Rupert wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Why be so coy about Information dystopia?
The torrent is attached. All this hemming and hawing about John's video without public sharing of the link is a lame attempt to avoid the inevitable. Let's get it overwith. I'm sure it isn't going to be pretty, but it seems we can't handle pretty. So let the downloading begin. And your ire, if there is any, is lost on me. If the file doesn't attach, get it here: http://rapidshare.com/files/135079235/information_dystopia.mp4.torrent.html -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
Congrats to Andrew and all involved! On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the giants who fell. It was a revolution right? So why is it that unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term? I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the way the market works. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com
[videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
You do understand I WANT personal vlogging and indie content to rule, right? I mean it's why I vlog.haven't seen your video yet, will check it out when I get home Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the giants who fell. It was a revolution right? So why is it that unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term? I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the way the market works. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
This from Rupert pretty much nails it, not just about vidoeblogging but about media - commercial, fine art, indie, ALL OF IT - in the new landscape: No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching loneliness, senility and death. Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. I'm not quite as pessimistic on the rest of it, even as a dyed in the wool anti-advertising anti-product-placement worshipper at Rev. Billy's Church of Stop Shopping, but as an analysis of where it all stands now that post is as spot on as anything I've read. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Yeah, the only way I got my friends and family to watch my personal videos was by subscribing them via RSS-email myself, and telling them to click on the link to confirm. Now that I've done it, they're quite happy. Unless the video doesn't play inside the email, in which case they mostly can't be bothered to click on the link to watch on the site. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Is there any value in forcing your video under the noses of people who say they're interested but can't actually be bothered to? The best you can do is provide a BitTorrent explanation for novices - and even then, most people will balk at having to download an app to do it. But fuck it - that's what keeps it underground, right? Otherwise, you might as well put it on Facebook or YouTube. Personally, I'm excited by what you've done. It never occurred to me to make longer form content available via BitTorrent. It opens up all sorts of possibilities that didn't exist in the ADHD world of traditional vlog and blog viewing. It's maybe like the video version of authors releasing e-book novels and stories. Something about it demands more attention than if it were dumped up on a blog entry. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Brook, my experience has been that if you treat your audience like they're a bunch of youtube using babies who can't figure anything out, then that's the audience you get. To get a quality audience you need to make demands of them. My latest video is a 39 minute, 700 meg monster. I made a promo on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxyOO200ho As a result, I've sent over 200 emails in the past week. And the video has been downloaded over 100 times. It may seem a little disappointing, considering the promo has received over one thousand views. But responding to people individually has given me a concept of scale. 100 people is a crowd. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email address. Anybody else who wants it can write [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think underground video has the potential to become a wild beast. A longer format. More like an album. Hope you enjoy it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] How to promote videos?
Hi guys! My name is Felipe Ferreira and I've been a member of this group for a few weeks now. I'm not a videoblogger per se but I do my share of video uploading. Basically I'm working on an Original Internet Animation Series called Temp Hero KID YOYO. The idea was to learn how to run a webshow from script to upload, doing 3d modelling, animation, songs, soundFX and editing on my own. I still have much to learn on these areas but they my progress on those is linear. However, promotion! There lies a dragon I can't seem to beat. Does any of you guys, veterans I may say, know a few places to promote an offbeat internet animation? Especially if it's non viral? My website is: www.kidyoyo.com Cheers!
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
Hey thanks so much to all! This is a serious milestone for us! I wrote a long winded post here if anyone is interested: http://dembot.com/post/44804077/sony-pictures-acquires-exclusive- worldwide-cross @ractalfece it get's to your point as well. Cheers! Andrew On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:36 PM, ractalfece wrote: What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the giants who fell. It was a revolution right? So why is it that unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term? I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the way the market works. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Haha. That's good. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? Before online videos, I was making zines and performing at poetry slams and open mics. I believed in starving for my art. Something changed though. It was after I got featured on youtube. Now I had an audience. Not a large audience by some standards. But huge for me. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. And after about two months I figured out the problem. I was still starving for my art but now I was also dealing with the hardships of fame. And as much as I tried to ignore my tiny piece of fame, it still had an effect on me. Why am I making videos? Do I want to attract advertisers? Is it because I'm hoping for some sort of immortality years down the road, as a pioneer in this medium? Even if I had such dreams, who's to say videoblogging isn't a fad? I have no faith web 2.0 is going to last. And that what's coming next is going to be better. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? I'm emailing you the torrent, Verdi. Or you can just grab it off the link someone else posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
YOu said: And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it... I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. I think that's the problem. What do you want to do? Make money? Then by all means, try appeasing the masses and make the videos THEY want you to make. Or are you making videos because it's your hobby/your art/your punk-rock-statement? Then you are making videos for YOU. IF others watch, well then - that's dandy. But the enjoyment is in the MAKING - not in the money. And that's my goal - to have fun (which I am). David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haha. That's good. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? Before online videos, I was making zines and performing at poetry slams and open mics. I believed in starving for my art. Something changed though. It was after I got featured on youtube. Now I had an audience. Not a large audience by some standards. But huge for me. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. And after about two months I figured out the problem. I was still starving for my art but now I was also dealing with the hardships of fame. And as much as I tried to ignore my tiny piece of fame, it still had an effect on me. Why am I making videos? Do I want to attract advertisers? Is it because I'm hoping for some sort of immortality years down the road, as a pioneer in this medium? Even if I had such dreams, who's to say videoblogging isn't a fad? I have no faith web 2.0 is going to last. And that what's coming next is going to be better. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? I'm emailing you the torrent, Verdi. Or you can just grab it off the link someone else posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40totalvom.com - I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
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. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. So let 'em stop watching. How does this prevent you from continuing? Why does exclusive distribution through bit torrent change the fact that they said these things? Sounds like what you actually want is a safer context in which to show your work. That's pretty much the opposite of avant-garde. It's preaching to the converted. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? OK, you're saying the audience should pay the performer or he'll pack it up and do something where there are slim chances that the performer (ok, different medium) will be paid. I don't get it. Pay me or I'll do something where you probably won't pay me? You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Maybe it will be clearer in the video. Brook -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. So let 'em stop watching. How does this prevent you from continuing? Why does exclusive distribution through bit torrent change the fact that they said these things? Sounds like what you actually want is a safer context in which to show your work. That's pretty much the opposite of avant-garde. It's preaching to the converted. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? OK, you're saying the audience should pay the performer or he'll pack it up and do something where there are slim chances that the performer (ok, different medium) will be paid. I don't get it. Pay me or I'll do something where you probably won't pay me? You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Maybe it will be clearer in the video. I think it will be clearer. Right now I'm pretty much arguing why I chose to use bittorrent instead of making it easily accessible. This isn't what the video is about. Bittorrent is technology I want to push. That's really all there is to it. I also wanted to give my audience the thrill of getting something that wasn't easy to get. Like back in the day when you had to send well concealed cash to a punk rock record distributer and then wait for the magic to arrive. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Brook -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YOu said: And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it... I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. I think that's the problem. What do you want to do? Make money? Then by all means, try appeasing the masses and make the videos THEY want you to make. Or are you making videos because it's your hobby/your art/your punk-rock-statement? Then you are making videos for YOU. IF others watch, well then - that's dandy. But the enjoyment is in the MAKING - not in the money. And that's my goal - to have fun (which I am). David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog David, it's great to have fun. My first year of online video, I was doing it for an audience that grew from 30 to about 200. But then my audience suddenly swelled (thanks to youtube feature) and my inbox was filled with hate mail and love letters. I was no longer doing it for a small cozy circle of people who were with it. It felt like I was on a big stage. And this rowdy bunch was very vocal about exactly what they wanted. What's the fun in that? What could I do? I could try to go backwards and get rid of my audience. Or I could find an alternative narrative. Define my own terms. And that's what I'm doing with this new video. And I know I am arguing with myself here. I'm explaining the personal circumstances that led up to the creation of Information Dystopia. The video is really about something bigger. I'll forward it to you. But you can just use the link someone posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
intimacy anti-hype uncommercialized art tech open good thread. it's cool to promote BT but i dont think it is usefukl unless you have a decent sized subsciber base who are all willing to seed your video. other underground file sharing tech/concepts can be used to avoid the mainstream/trolls and mesh with a more intimate audience. reminds me a little of what brought about http://forthoseof.us john, email me as well. thanks. sull On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ... ... [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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
only this list can have a thread started about me being inspired by the distribution of a video because be wants the video to not be easily attained and digested, into a discussion about making money. Maybe I should have just asked for a group hug!:) But Rupert, Jackson, and I really are making your new favorite tracker: moneythong.com Thanks to John for the inspiration. On 8/5/08, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat
[videoblogging] Re: H264 encoded movies
Actually blip.tv supports h264 today using the player customizer. If you use http://blip.tv/players/edit and use the Advanced tab to add allowm4v and true then h264 video will work. The player will automatically check to see if the version of Flash is high enough, and if any of the videos associated with the episode are compatible, and prefer those. We don't publicize this because it's still beta and isn't supported on the blip.tv site itself (only in customized players you embed). --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Jay! I did many times too. But over these months I go the same response. It looks like they're trying to reinvent the wheel. Adding a feature like this shouldn't take that long, should it? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: When will the players from blip.tv or vimeo.com will natively support H.264 content? They have been promising it for ages but what's holding them? The file size of H.264 video is way smaller too compared to Quicktime/WMV. Anyone has any info on this? I emailed your question to blip@ they sent me back this response: Hi, We are currently working on that feature right now. When the feature is released, it will be documented on our blog at http://blog.blip.tv/blog/ Thanks, Carey -- Blip.tv Support support@
[videoblogging] Re: Assistive Hiking Experiment
Posted by: Lisa Harper [EMAIL PROTECTED] lisah2u Tue Aug 5, 2008 7:54 am (PDT) I loved the audio track. How did you capture such great sound? Got lucky. The song birds were ridiculous that day. I used only the on board stereo mic on a Canon HF100. I held it on a monopod with two fingers to try and get some steady-cam counter balance action going. ~ ~ Caleb J. Clark ~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com ~ The problem with communication is the assumption it has been accomplished. - G. B. Shaw. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 john@ 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.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
People pay for media every day through cable and satellite subscriptions, iTunes, and a hundred other outlets. I pay for HBO and love it. I also like paying for things that individual artists make. Etsy has proven that it's a very viable business model too. I set up a shop in Etsy to sell custom animations earlier this year, but it never got any traction. Probably because I didn't promote it anywhere. This isn't a new idea. It just hasn't been successfully done yet with new media indy video yet. I'm glad you're trying it. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 john@ 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
oh hey adam the custom animations thing -- i went to zinefest last year and this girl was selling custom comic books about any event -- they were awsome! she made a business out of it i was going to make one about my father but totally forgot because i only think aobut myself most of the time but now u remind me! On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: People pay for media every day through cable and satellite subscriptions, iTunes, and a hundred other outlets. I pay for HBO and love it. I also like paying for things that individual artists make. Etsy has proven that it's a very viable business model too. I set up a shop in Etsy to sell custom animations earlier this year, but it never got any traction. Probably because I didn't promote it anywhere. This isn't a new idea. It just hasn't been successfully done yet with new media indy video yet. I'm glad you're trying it. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED]john%40totalvom.com wrote: Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40totalvom.com - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.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
Re: [videoblogging] How to promote videos?
welcome felipe! i'm going to check witha few people to see if they can give me some advice about your question :) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:20 PM, hoclides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys! My name is Felipe Ferreira and I've been a member of this group for a few weeks now. I'm not a videoblogger per se but I do my share of video uploading. Basically I'm working on an Original Internet Animation Series called Temp Hero KID YOYO. The idea was to learn how to run a webshow from script to upload, doing 3d modelling, animation, songs, soundFX and editing on my own. I still have much to learn on these areas but they my progress on those is linear. However, promotion! There lies a dragon I can't seem to beat. Does any of you guys, veterans I may say, know a few places to promote an offbeat internet animation? Especially if it's non viral? My website is: www.kidyoyo.com Cheers! -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
