Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 lot of people here do. Almost every video blogger *wants* the best possibly quality video they can get, they aren't keeping it small for some artistic reason. They keep it small because they are (or think they are) constrained by some technical limitation. Almost every video blogger? Care to back this up a little? It's just not true. In my experience, most people videoblogging are using what's convenient to them. Whether it's an iSight or their phone camera or the camera they happen to have. And a balance of cost to convenience. Remember all the trouble you had cutting H264 MP4 And then there are the many many filmmakers you dismiss as 'arty farty', quite a few of whom (like me) do not just want to rack up the pixel count so that we can have massive resolution. As I explained before (no response?) - for a *lot* of reasons. Aesthetics, ease, storage, bandwidth, cutting, etc etc ETC. Deliberately limiting your source material because you have some preconceived notion about how it should be viewed, is in my view a silly thing to do. ?! But hey, if you want to go all arty-farty and shoot small, be my guest, just don't argue that's even close to what most video bloggers want, you'd be way off the mark. Equally, please don't argue that you know what most video bloggers want. You'd be way off the mark. And 'arty farty'?? All power to full screen video, but please don't make an argument that this is the only way to approach video online. I'm not. I'm simply saying that any videoblogger should be making use of the best possible resolution they can easily do. Finally - everything Adrian and I have said is about why they can do whatever they want - not because they *should* be doing anything. There are a lot more things at play here than just shooting at the best possible resolution. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: ok..more questions about sound
Well, in the case of the restaurant, is the visual clearly showing the setting. If so, I would say some subtle restaurant sound in the background will help sell the story of the location. now ideally, you would want to capture the speaking talent in the quietest situation possible, and later (or earlier) record some b-roll audio of restaurant sound to lay into your timeline. That way you have ultimate control. If that is not possible, very likely, then just try to get as far away from the kitchen or the noisiest part of the location and get a uni directional mic as close as possible to the talent. A uni will reject a surprising amount of otherwise audible sound from anything not directly in the range of its response pattern - that is, directly in front of it. Good luck, sounds like a challenge. But leave yourself plenty of time to set up and test. I was recently rushed by a busy CEO who had little time to spare and I ended up getting very poor audio as i had no time to get properly set up. Very disappointing, as i know with an extra few minutes I could have listened to the recording and fine tuned the room. Adam Mercado Influxx Media Production --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, loretabirkus loretabir...@... wrote: Hi..I know..I was asking tons of questions about sound/hum noise, etc. At least I figured out that it's not my camera that makes that hum/static noise, and it all depends on the environment I'm filming. My questions would be: 1. Besides recording 10-15 sec of the natural ambient sound and trying to clean it during editing, is there any way to record it with minimum of it during filming? Do you have any secrets? Do you prepare the room somehow so that the voice could bounce back softly? None of my shot guns have been able to perform to the highest noise elimination level. I try to place a mic as close to the speaker as possible (usually on a separate tripod, don't have a boom pole yet) and adjust the volume level so that it doesn't pass further than -6-8 db. But I still get that quiet natural background noise. What do you do in this case? Do you just leave it or do you clean it? 2. Which type of lavaliere mic would you recommend: wireless or cabled one? What brand? Which ones are best in terms of noise cancellation? I'm kinda glad I didn't buy anything, now that they're changing the rules for the 700 mHz frequency type mics. Thanks. Loreta p.s. if you have any good forums that I could check out as well, please let me know. I'm unlucky finding the ones that would answer my questions.
[videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 CHOICE. I dont 'film' at 320x240. In fact i dont 'film' at all, and neither do you. Get your technicalities right before you bandy silly ideas around. You shoot video, so technically you record. And I RECORD my video at 640x480. I CHOOSE to downscale to 320x240 because my expert eye has determined that the image looks better that way. It benefits from the reduced noise and softened image. My full frame 480p image is captured on a $100 flip, whereas your image is captured on a $400 HD cam. If i were shooting content that I thought worthy of such a camera I would certainly invest in one. I own a professional miniDV camera that captures quite a nice full frame image, but I dont quite fancy lugging that around with me to the playground to shoot my son, which is what the majority of my videoblogging contains. 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 somewhere is paying for it. We wil all pay for it if the ISPs want to throttle their networks thanks to every tom dick and harry publishing HD video of their son on a swing, thus choking up the networks with unnecessary bits. your content may very well warrant the higher quality. Thats your choice. Miine does not. Thats my choice. Its horses for courses mate. Post a link to your site. I'd like to see what you are publishing Cheers Adam Mercado Influxx Media Production --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Jones david.jo...@... wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... 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 of choice and the only place to find an audience! But hey, because I film at 1280x720 I *could* do that if I wanted to, because I'm smart enough to film my content at the best quality I'm capable of. (Technically I can do 1920x1280, but I drew the line smaller for practical and optical reasons). I therefore have the option to project in a cinema as well as produce a 160x120 ultra small podcast, or anything in between if I so chose. I've got this amazing thing called choice! It's a real shame those who film in 320x240 don't have the same choice... it is a wrong argument as it is like saying because I'm a painter and I can have a 4 metre square canvas anyone who chooses to paint miniatures, or even small canvases, isn't really doing painting. (Or if I write a novella instead of a novel I'm not really a writer, etc.) I am NOT saying those who film and upload is 320x240 or smaller are not videoblogging or not creating useful content. They certainly are. I'm just saying that such a limited resolution is really doing their efforts a disservice if creating higher resolution content isn't much more difficult. And lets be honest, it's not. There are deliberate creative, aesthetic, technical, theoretical, practical reasons for choosing scale in these ways so that choosing to be small is recognised not as a default condition of all that the technology allows but a deliberate creative decision. Like choosing to write a haiku when I could also have written a short story. Or a novel. It also ignores the entire role of constraint to creative practice and art (there is no art without constraint, pixel dimensions does not have to be a constraint, but it does not follow from this that you must therefore only go for the highest current available pixel dimensions). Sure, but that whole argument is such a big red herring and so entirely beside the point it's not funny! Almost every video blogger *wants* the best possibly quality video they can get, they aren't keeping it small for some artistic reason. They keep it small because they are (or think they are) constrained by some technical limitation. If you have the capability to do greater than 320x240 and you are deliberately sticking to 320x240 for some reason then I stand by my assertion that you are doing your efforts a big disservice. Seriously 640x480 is so trivially easy on almost any bit of hardware, it is no harder than 320x240. 320x240 is just not worth it unless you are producing a specific podcast or similar where bandwidth is critical. I produce a 480x272 podcast version of my show for just such reasons, but I'm not silly enough to film at that resolution or only make my product available only at that resolution. For example
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube Live Streaming Video
Thanks everyone. I guess they are keeping that tech to themselves for a while eh --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joly MacFie j...@... wrote: Yep that U2 show.. according to mashable there were a couple of others http://mashable.com/2009/10/19/u2-youtube-live-stream/ On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:53 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: all that happened was a one-off streamed event that November. Since then I think they may have streamed a few other large events, but I havent heard anything else. Cheers Steve Elbows -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: A nice html5 video player with fullscreen
When do you think WordPress will have a HTML5 video player? What would need to be done for that to happen? cheers adam --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joly MacFie j...@... wrote: I was seeing a litle jittery spot in the area where the control panel shows up. Anyone else? Apart from that - looks good. I'm sure JW isn't sitting on his hands! j Here's what Gruber had to say about it: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/02/01/sublimevideo - -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 somewhere is paying for it. We wil all pay for it if the ISPs want to throttle their networks thanks to every tom dick and harry publishing HD video of their son on a swing, thus choking up the networks with unnecessary bits. your content may very well warrant the higher quality. Thats your choice. Miine does not. Thats my choice. really want to second this. In a world where sustainability really is an issue network sustainability (which includes bandwidth) *is* significant. You can't pump big video into most of the world. For some projects that does not matter, but for many it does. I remember teaching Masters students in Norway who scoffed at what I showed them in QuickTime for compression and editing, pointing out that downstairs they had Avids, 3 chip cameras etc. Half of these students were on scholarships from the developing world. I asked them so, when you go home and out to a school, do you want everyone to be able to shoot and edit and publish video for a $30 bit of software, or do you want to tell them that they can only tell their stories when they learn how to use, own, maintain, an Avid? Every one of them shut up and started playing. Today I could have the same conversation with them about bandwidth. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au/research/contact-me/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 reported in June 2009 that: Internet video is now approximately one-third of all consumer Internet traffic, not including the amount of video exchanged through P2P file sharing. The sum of all forms of video (TV, video on demand, Internet, and P2P) will account for over 91 percent of global consumer traffic by 2013. Internet video alone will account for over 60 percent of all consumer Internet traffic in 2013. 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. It's been happening every day for the last month - our usage goes up, the speeds die. We're supposed to have 10mbps unlimited bandwidth connection. And the ISP (not my choice) is the main telecom company here: BT, who control the network. A sign of things to come. I have heard that speeds are also an issue in Australia (where Adrian and Dave both are) - and a friend in South Africa tells me that streaming YouTube videos is a problem, even in downtown Johannesburg. 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 do?) then using it is akin to using a gas guzzling SUV to do the school run. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 11 Feb 2010, at 10:11, Adrian Miles wrote: 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 somewhere is paying for it. We wil all pay for it if the ISPs want to throttle their networks thanks to every tom dick and harry publishing HD video of their son on a swing, thus choking up the networks with unnecessary bits. your content may very well warrant the higher quality. Thats your choice. Miine does not. Thats my choice. really want to second this. In a world where sustainability really is an issue network sustainability (which includes bandwidth) *is* significant. You can't pump big video into most of the world. For some projects that does not matter, but for many it does. I remember teaching Masters students in Norway who scoffed at what I showed them in QuickTime for compression and editing, pointing out that downstairs they had Avids, 3 chip cameras etc. Half of these students were on scholarships from the developing world. I asked them so, when you go home and out to a school, do you want everyone to be able to shoot and edit and publish video for a $30 bit of software, or do you want to tell them that they can only tell their stories when they learn how to use, own, maintain, an Avid? Every one of them shut up and started playing. Today I could have the same conversation with them about bandwidth. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au/research/contact-me/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 do?) then using it is akin to using a gas guzzling SUV to do the school run. and frankly expresses a similar attitude to everyone else out there :-) In some contexts of course hi res is what you need - if my doctor is going to look at online images of my body then hi resolution and integrity of data is essential! But yes, it is what I think of as bandwidth pollution. If you don't need to use that much, don't. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au/research/contact-me/
[videoblogging] Re: Small Battery Powered Lighting
You can get a Sima LED light. Not expensive. I've got it listed in my book's store: http://getseen.ning.com/store It's rechargeable, but you also can't run it plugged in. So you have to plan when using it to have it charged up. --Steve --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, adammerc...@... adammerc...@... wrote: The LitePanels have a great reputation. LED camera mounted lights. Very cool, very efficient. But expensive. You can also get hot shoe splitters or doublers, whatever they may be called that will give you 2 shoes from your on-camera 1 shoeif that makes sense Adam Influx Media Production --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cris Thomas thomas_cris@ wrote: So my microphone situation seems to be solved but I discovered this weekend that I really need some sort of lighting solution. I was doing impromptue interviews in Hotel lobby's, conference rooms and hallways. Obviously not the best lighting situtation. I ended up trying to stand underneath some of the spotlights in the ceiling and most of the shots came out OK but they would have been much better with a light. Ideally I am looking for something battery powered, small, and that can be attached to my camera or tripod. I have a cold shoe attachment but it is occupied by my microphone. I am using a Panasonic HDC-TM300 if that matters. Any suggestions? Thanks! - C. Thomas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] MacWorld Today
If you're in San Francisco, I've got to things planned for today in addition to checking out MacWorld. Wiley Meet the Authors at MacWorld http://flic.kr/p/7C6RJB I'll be at the Wiley booth at 2:00 today! MacWorld Videobloggers Meetup Tweetup Drinkup: Today at 6:30 - 8:30 House of Shields SF. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=337840067575 I've got a few free copies of my book, Get Seen, and a Kodak Vx1 HD camera to give away. Hope to see you in SF. --Steve http://stevegarfield.com
[videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 saw no end of stuff that looked worse than 320x240 because they hadnt deinterlaced so there were bad comb artefacts when camera or people moved. The vast majority of vlogs that I watch dont really lose anything by being 320x240. There are certain types of content that I love watching at higher resolutions, but even with a pretty fast broadband connection I dont like to wait long - many of the popular video hosts are not delivering content to me at anything like the speed that my broadband can handle. I do like video hosts that enable the viewer to switch between HD and non-HD versions of the video very easily. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Jones david.jo...@... wrote: Seriously 640x480 is so trivially easy on almost any bit of hardware, it is no harder than 320x240. 320x240 is just not worth it unless you are producing a specific podcast or similar where bandwidth is critical. I produce a 480x272 podcast version of my show for just such reasons, but I'm not silly enough to film at that resolution or only make my product available only at that resolution. I'm not necessarily talking about HD here, as there is still has quite a few technical issues for the average users as has been discussed on here many times. But lets be honest, 5 or even 10 year old gear is easily capable of 640x480, as is any $50 second hand DV camcorder of any age. Heck, I can remember easily editing a 2 hour 720x576 DVD movie on an 800MHz Pentium 3 with 768MB of memory and crappy integrated Intel graphics card. Dave.
[videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 use vpip on my wordpress site to add the videos. Over the years, I've since gone back, left the original video @ 320x240, but I have it displayed on the site at 480x360. It looks no worse than some of the stuff I see on YT. While I have my pants down telling all my dirty secrets, I've shoot everything over the past couple years in HD. I don't output in HD, just the original content is in HD. That way, I have more options down the road. HD on the web? Meh. My old iMac 1.8ghz which has just enough juice to edit/produce my vlogs, has heart palpitations when trying to download view HD videos from the web. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: 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 saw no end of stuff that looked worse than 320x240 because they hadnt deinterlaced so there were bad comb artefacts when camera or people moved. The vast majority of vlogs that I watch dont really lose anything by being 320x240. There are certain types of content that I love watching at higher resolutions, but even with a pretty fast broadband connection I dont like to wait long - many of the popular video hosts are not delivering content to me at anything like the speed that my broadband can handle. I do like video hosts that enable the viewer to switch between HD and non-HD versions of the video very easily. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Jones david.jones@ wrote: Seriously 640x480 is so trivially easy on almost any bit of hardware, it is no harder than 320x240. 320x240 is just not worth it unless you are producing a specific podcast or similar where bandwidth is critical. I produce a 480x272 podcast version of my show for just such reasons, but I'm not silly enough to film at that resolution or only make my product available only at that resolution. I'm not necessarily talking about HD here, as there is still has quite a few technical issues for the average users as has been discussed on here many times. But lets be honest, 5 or even 10 year old gear is easily capable of 640x480, as is any $50 second hand DV camcorder of any age. Heck, I can remember easily editing a 2 hour 720x576 DVD movie on an 800MHz Pentium 3 with 768MB of memory and crappy integrated Intel graphics card. Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 use vpip on my wordpress site to add the videos. Over the years, I've since gone back, left the original video @ 320x240, but I have it displayed on the site at 480x360. It looks no worse than some of the stuff I see on YT. While I have my pants down telling all my dirty secrets, I've shoot everything over the past couple years in HD. I don't output in HD, just the original content is in HD. That way, I have more options down the road. I've always advocated this direction. I loved vPIP (http://vpip.org) because it let you post multiple formats so people could choose. Someone may want the full HD version, while another person can choose the smaller Flash version, or another person may want to watch the .ogv file, or someone else can watch the H264 version because they really appreciate the compression quality. vPIP also creates different RSS feeds for your different formats. This is important since different devices require different formats since we're still in days of the codec war. I've always been surprised vPIP hasnt been more popular, or someone hasn't copied it's features.I guess because it takes more work to post multiple formats, but I think its a nice option until there's some standardization. I also still post smaller sized videos online...but keep higher quality archives for the future. I'd rather people watch a slightly slower quality video than click away because they dont want to watch for the 720HD version to download. 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 choice. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 promote, most of which Ive long since forgotten. What remains active of these prior efforts? There was some very nice functionality in these things but they needed polishing to gain wider use. As for why such ideas werent copied, I guess it would mostly be down to a relative lack of plugin developers who were familiar with all of the videoblogging power wishlists, coupled with the rise of the various video hosting services which has left us with mostly plugins that make it easy to embed video players from these different video hosts, but not a lot else. Progress on better multimedia handling within the core of things like wordpress has been much-requested over the years but very slow to evolve in practice. Throw in factors such as it being easier for the masses to go for hosted blog options or just posting their stuff to social networks or have people go to their main youtube page etc, and its not hard to see why innovation has stalled on these fronts. Im still struggling badly with this era of web-services which we cant build upon ourselves, and all these different ecosystems and forms of communication such as microblogging, social networks etc, which can sort of play with eachother but dont really gel in a cohesive way. In some ways everything is nice and easy and the complexity magic is hidden, in other ways I worry about the future and dont see so much scope for the little developers to build on these foundations in a way that is useful to the masses. I wanted stuff to evolve whereby people could mix a variety of different services from different companies together in a standard and modulaar way, where it would be trivial to switch service providers for any part of the system without having a nightmare, where the user had full control over their data, and where there was still room for indie developers to add functionality to the basic service offerings. Well in reality we sometimes get sort of some of the above, but not in a way that makes me feel there is a cohesive platform I can build on without placing undue trust on a single corporate platform such as writing a facebook app or whatever. Never mind, personally Im hungy to work on something so shall likely return to Drupal and see what can be done with that in conjunction with video hosting services html5. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: I've always been surprised vPIP hasnt been more popular, or someone hasn't copied it's features.I guess because it takes more work to post multiple formats, but I think its a nice option until there's some standardization.
[videoblogging] Re: A nice html5 video player with fullscreen
There is already at least one: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/degradable-html5-audio-and-video/ I doubt it is perfect yet but this stuff isnt too hard to achieve so I expect we'll get a variety of solutions in the years to come. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, adammerc...@... adammerc...@... wrote: When do you think WordPress will have a HTML5 video player? What would need to be done for that to happen? cheers adam
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 what they hold to be true. so i'll refrain from ripping you a new one wink and just say this. Go for your life, I can handle it, I stand by my comments. Many people take what I say personally, or mistakenly think I'm personally attacking them in some way, that's sad. My comments are meant for general discussion and food for thought. 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 CHOICE. I did read it and I knew that you chose to downscale to 640x480. Nothing wrong with that, that's your choice, and I'd probably do the same thing if I deemed the quality was not acceptable at 640x480. In fact, from memory I think I did do that on my first blog with a web cam. Once again, I was speaking about low res in general, not about you or your circumstances personally. I dont 'film' at 320x240. In fact i dont 'film' at all, and neither do you. Get your technicalities right before you bandy silly ideas around. You shoot video, so technically you record. Perfectly common usage, you knew what I mean, and I'm sure everyone else did too. So what's your point?, that my comments somehow have less validity because I chose to use the term film instead of shoot? I'll call it what I want, thank you very much. So my idea of advising people to at least film (sorry, shoot) and if possible upload at the best quality they reasonably can do so users have a choice is silly? YouTube recommend it too, so please do explain how that's silly... And as I've said I'm also an advocate of optimising your downloads for certain needs like podcasting etc. I do it myself. But I don't *only* upload at 320x240, because I know people like to view my blog in many different ways, and my blog is mostly a talking head that can be viewed adequately at 320x240. So I give them a choice and upload the best material I have available. And I RECORD my video at 640x480. I CHOOSE to downscale to 320x240 because my expert eye has determined that the image looks better that way. It benefits from the reduced noise and softened image. Sure, you'll get no argument from me. My full frame 480p image is captured on a $100 flip, whereas your image is captured on a $400 HD cam. If i were shooting content that I thought worthy of such a camera I would certainly invest in one. I own a professional miniDV camera that captures quite a nice full frame image, but I dont quite fancy lugging that around with me to the playground to shoot my son, which is what the majority of my videoblogging contains. Once again you'll get argument from me, my comments were more directed in general at those who use cameras and system capable of higher res, but chose to use to lower resolution for whatever reason. Would you still downscale to 320x240 if your cam was capable of good quality 640x480? I doubt it, I bet you'd be chuffed with your 640x480 image quality and want to show it to the world. 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 somewhere is paying for it. We wil all pay for it if the ISPs want to throttle their networks thanks to every tom dick and harry publishing HD video of their son on a swing, thus choking up the networks with unnecessary bits. your content may very well warrant the higher quality. Thats your choice. Miine does not. Thats my choice. Once again, systems like YouTube are capable of displaying and using whatever bandwidth the user desires. So in these cases it's better to upload in the best quality you can so the user can decide what they want. And that's not just my personal opinion, remember, YouTube recommend and encourage everyone to upload their *best quality* source material, (at least 640x480 recommended). They wouldn't do they if they didn't have the storage and processing space to do it. And as I've said, they offer the user a choice of download sizes and bandwidths, which defaults to the smallest 320p, so you can't argue it's a download bandwidth issue here. Its horses for courses mate. Always. Post a link to your site. I'd like to see what you are publishing It's not for a general audience, but here you go: www.eevblog.com Yours? Regards Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 choice. 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 watch directly via my YouTube channel, which again defaults to 360p. So my available HD content uses no more bandwidth than anyone else's blog or video, unless the user decides that's what they want. Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 about you or your circumstances personally. and: I did read it and I knew that you chose to downscale to 640x480. Nothing wrong with that, that's your choice, and I'd probably do the same thing if I deemed the quality was not acceptable at 640x480. But the whole reason this discussion started in the first place was because your original comment was: Adam: 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 resolution. Waste of bandwidth. David: 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? A video blog should be all about the video (ok audio is super important too, but beside the point), the bigger and more glorious the source material the better. Try watching 320x240 full screen... I know people who watch my video blog like a TV show and put it on full screen while having their breakfast etc. Nothing about it being fine for Adam to shoot in low res. I shoot in 320 why have a video blog at all. That's why I replied. I'm sort of frustrated with your implication that my response has been to take this personally - it is purely a reaction to your general statement about what people (or Adam) should not be doing. Once again (yawn) my point is that it's not enough just to tell everyone they should shoot in as high a resolution as possible. There are *many* good reasons people shoot small, which I've set out numerous times.I've taken time to spell them out. To have a discussion. Any acknowledgement? Anyway - enough already. I hope you remember that I think your vlog is awesome, and this is *not* some kind of personal thing as you implied. Just if anyone says why have a video blog at all to i shoot in 320, you can bet I'm going to reply, fairly vigorously. To anyone, in whatever forum. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 11 Feb 2010, at 21:09, David Jones wrote: Go for your life, I can handle it, I stand by my comments. Many people take what I say personally, or mistakenly think I'm personally attacking them in some way, that's sad. My comments are meant for general discussion and food for thought. 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 CHOICE. I did read it and I knew that you chose to downscale to 640x480. Nothing wrong with that, that's your choice, and I'd probably do the same thing if I deemed the quality was not acceptable at 640x480. In fact, from memory I think I did do that on my first blog with a web cam. Once again, I was speaking about low res in general, not about you or your circumstances personally. I dont 'film' at 320x240. In fact i dont 'film' at all, and neither do you. Get your technicalities right before you bandy silly ideas around. You shoot video, so technically you record. Perfectly common usage, you knew what I mean, and I'm sure everyone else did too. So what's your point?, that my comments somehow have less validity because I chose to use the term film instead of shoot? I'll call it what I want, thank you very much. So my idea of advising people to at least film (sorry, shoot) and if possible upload at the best quality they reasonably can do so users have a choice is silly? YouTube recommend it too, so please do explain how that's silly... And as I've said I'm also an advocate of optimising your downloads for certain needs like podcasting etc. I do it myself. But I don't *only* upload at 320x240, because I know people like to view my blog in many different ways, and my blog is mostly a talking head that can be viewed adequately at 320x240. So I give them a choice and upload the best material I have available. And I RECORD my video at 640x480. I CHOOSE to downscale to 320x240 because my expert eye has determined that the image looks better that way. It benefits from the reduced noise and softened image. Sure, you'll get no argument from me. My full frame 480p image is captured on a $100 flip, whereas your image is captured on a $400 HD cam. If i were shooting content that I thought worthy of such a camera I would certainly invest in one. I own a professional miniDV camera that captures quite a nice full frame image, but I dont
[videoblogging] House of Shields event still on for tonight?
Hoping to meet some pros!PS--is it at 6 or 6:30?
[videoblogging] Veoh is dead
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100211/veoh-finally-calls-it-quits-layoffs-yesterday-bankruptcy-filing-soon/- I never really used them, but thought y'all would find this interesting nonetheless... David Lee King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog twitter | skype: davidleeking [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Veoh is dead
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100211/veoh-finally-calls-it-quits-layoffs-yesterday-bankruptcy-filing-soon/- I never really used them, but thought y'all would find this interesting nonetheless... I dont know anyone who used them to host videos. Not exactly sure who their users were. Kind of reminded me of Revver, another online video hosting company to go bankrupt. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Veoh is dead
Oh. I expected more web video companies to go bust more quickly than has actually been the case, so in some ways I am surprised it took this long for another well-known player to fail. Ive read at least one article that suggests the Universal Music lawsuit was the main factor that killed them (even though they won that case in the end it harmed them). Im sure that was a big factor but not sure it is quite that simple. For a start Veoh was all about being a use for their peer2peer technology, but the success of in-browser video viewing forced them to change their approach. Then youtube came to dominate and got deep pockets via Google, presumably making success in this sector much tougher for youtubes rivals. Veoh tried various other strategies such as working more with traditional media companies content, and cutting off access from large parts of the world, but it seems despite plenty of attempts to change it did not pay off. One of many lessons to be learnt is that people can be funny about installing things, thus spoiling Veohs original plan and the main advantage they thought they had, their peer2peer technology. Although I probably had doubts about this at the time and probably expressed them here, it was not easy to be sure at the time - when the vlogging thing first started to catch on it wasnt clear how we would be paying for bandwidth for our videos once a lot of peole started watching them, there werent any youtubes or blips, flash hadnt yet come to become the grand enabler of in-browser video that it is today, heck we didnt even realise how much video would remain in browser rather than being offline aggregated via feeds apps. Was Veoh one of the companies that earned the wrath of this group once upon a time and their founder appeared and went some way towards trying to rectify whatever it was that made us upset? I'll store a tear for Veoh in the same jar as DivX's failed attempts to become a great web video standard and host, and whatever the other video big video host that went bust a while ago was - jeepers I cant even remember its name. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Lee King davidleek...@... wrote: http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100211/veoh-finally-calls-it-quits-layoffs-yesterday-bankruptcy-filing-soon/- I never really used them, but thought y'all would find this interesting nonetheless... David Lee King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog twitter | skype: davidleeking [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Veoh is dead
By the way their website is still up as I write this, although when poking around I note they havnt put a new press-release on their site since December 2008. Did some brief trawling through the archives of this group circa 2005-2006 and saw one reason why I remember Veoh - Their founder was active here when they started, and the Halycon bloke with pink hair rather overpromoted them on this group from time to time. At least this company actually had some technology of their own that made them a bit different - it didnt work out for multiple reasons but never mind. Too crude to draw the conclusion that it seems hard for many people to make profitable use of peer2peer stuff? Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Veoh is dead
I did, and have been, but not as the primary hosting. Mostly it was a good way to see my videos from the outside looking in, especially when I was first starting. Now, I have my own website plus another distribution arrangement. - Original Message - From: Jay dedman To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Veoh is dead http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100211/veoh-finally-calls-it-quits-layoffs-yesterday-bankruptcy-filing-soon/- I never really used them, but thought y'all would find this interesting nonetheless... I dont know anyone who used them to host videos. Not exactly sure who their users were. Kind of reminded me of Revver, another online video hosting company to go bankrupt. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Veoh is dead
Did some brief trawling through the archives of this group circa 2005-2006 and saw one reason why I remember Veoh - Their founder was active here when they started, and the Halycon bloke with pink hair rather overpromoted them on this group from time to time. Those were the days when you could literally watch almost every video posted each day. It was in the hundreds. Veoh decided to import, transcode, and reupload everyone's videos to Veoh one night. I bet it was before a funding meeting so they wanted to show how popular they were. Dmitry came on the list and made peace by deleting all the videos they imported. It was this incident that had a group of us create this best practices for hosting sites: http://videoblogginggroup.pbworks.com/Best+Practices+for+Aggregation+Sites I dont see sites do this anymore (reuploading people's videos). Maybe Im not just aware of it. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 watch directly via my YouTube channel, which again defaults to 360p. So my available HD content uses no more bandwidth than anyone else's blog or video, unless the user decides that's what they want. I didnt know Youtube did all this these days. This is great. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 stats, IMO. -Chad -- Sent from my Palm Pre Jay dedman wrote: 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 watch directly via my YouTube channel, which again defaults to 360p. So my available HD content uses no more bandwidth than anyone else's blog or video, unless the user decides that's what they want. I didnt know Youtube did all this these days. This is great. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Remember when it was all 320x240?
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 promote, most of which Ive long since forgotten. What remains active of these prior efforts? There was some very nice functionality in these things but they needed polishing to gain wider use. People got understandably burnt out developing themes and plugins. Also it was a time when Wordpress was updating itself every couple weeks. Too difficult to keep up. Eric (aka UnholyKnight) was cool enough to update recently the plugins for the latest Wordpress: http://unholyknight.com/VideoWrangler/ But as youve mentioned, commercial services have come along way to providing the services people want. David Jones just clued me into how easy Youtube has made viewing. Upload one version and they trasncode into multiple formats, plus seem to provide different RSS feeds for different devices. That's all we were ever trying to do with http://showinabox.tv/ I wanted stuff to evolve whereby people could mix a variety of different services from different companies together in a standard and modulaar way, where it would be trivial to switch service providers for any part of the system without having a nightmare, where the user had full control over their data, and where there was still room for indie developers to add functionality to the basic service offerings. Well in reality we sometimes get sort of some of the above, but not in a way that makes me feel there is a cohesive platform I can build on without placing undue trust on a single corporate platform such as writing a facebook app or whatever. I always wanted to build a frontend for Amazon S3. It'd be an app that connected to your S3 account. You'd just drag a video into the app...and it'd transcode and upload the video into multiple versions. It'd provide a nice interface to your library of videos, including DV/HD copies of all your work. Hosting is cheap enough to do this. 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 through Youtube. Never mind, personally Im hungry to work on something so shall likely return to Drupal and see what can be done with that in conjunction with video hosting services html5. I like the possibilities in HTML5. What will be interesting is if we can find different ways to tell stories beyond just a short video posted in a Flash player. All this could be more than just TV on the internet. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
