[videoblogging] Re: My Videoblogging Website
I also experimented, using Blogger, with channel networks and show players http://videoactiv.blogspot.com/ while making much use of Vodpod. The point being that you can bend Blogger templates by hacking them every which way. But as to what constitutes the best design for a videoblog -- I really don't know.I think the invention is yet to come. dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Apple laptop
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mgmoon mgm...@... wrote: Ratbag ... once you go Mac, you'll never go back. That's what i was afraid of...
[videoblogging] Apple laptop
I've been a long time Windows XP user with a few explorations of Ubuntu. Since it looks like I'll need to get a new computer and my daughter works in an Apple store (having amde it to 'Expert' this week) -- I'm wondering about switching over to Mr Jobs' handiwork. But what would I need to consider IF I wanted to run my video editing needs on a Apple laptop? I'd be new to laptops anyway and was thinking I'd make a big break to a new format entirely... Or maybe I simply go with a Apple computer and leave it at that and supplement my everyday usage with a iPad? dave riley
[videoblogging] Blogger themes
I'm a Blogger template user for a range of blog and multimedia options. What theme best suits video presentation is sure to be a personal preference --as will be preferred platform -- but I now use a simple Blogger theme by Quite Random, STRIPPED http://quiterandom.com/freebies/stripped/ Quite Random has this week launched another free new theme,NoteLog which may suit the pristine preferences among us http://quiterandom.com/freebies/notelog/ dave riley
[videoblogging] New Vodpod option on BlipTV
Eagle-eyed blip.tv users might have noticed that we added VodPod to the distribution dashboard this week. This means that you can now easily distribute your show to the very enthusiastic viewers and curators that hang out at vodpod.com. But a new audience is only half of what makes Vodpod awesome. Once you're setup there, you'll have access to both their widgets and their powerful Vodspot service. The photo above shows a Vodpod widget in use on my today on blip.tv blog. We use it on this blog, too! Check it out: http://blip.tv/dashboard/distribution/vodpod http://theblog.blip.tv/post/599102450
[videoblogging] Re: Editing videos with more than one program
(1) Yes, Windows Movie Maker Portable is I think limited to XP and before as it is a revamp of an old release before Microsoft rolled back some of the features. (2) I'm still experimenting by saving my videos and opening up various renders in different programs to see m what my options are. That I can go back and forth between Movie Maker and VirtualDub is important to me.As I learn my way through the complexities of video formats, bit rates, and the like I need to cover my bases via such a means. (3)My main interest was to extend my titling options. MM Portable offers an extensive range of video effects but relies on the previous Titling options -- which are nonetheless quite useful without being snazzy. And titling, nonetheless, with MM is so darn easy. (4)However, there's an interesting hack that I'm going to pursue for Movie Maker http://www.windowsmoviemakers.net/PapaJohn/13/IrfanView_With_Movie_Maker.aspx which uses a great little program -- IrfanView -- to create titles on successive frames. (5)But then, one of my preferred editing programs, Ulead VideoStudio Pro , is being offered by Corel for $US50 all this month which is a bargain in any one's currency. `When I was using Sony Vegas I found minute clip work cumbersome with the program. But then for gross editing VirtualDub is so much faster. So I may end up teaming VirtualDub with Ulead VideoStudio Pro. I'm currently using their 30 day free trail. So I wonder: is there enough extra oomph in Ulead to warrant the money (not much) or the habituation? Unlike Sony Vegas, Ulead is kind to my system's resources. (6) I also explored Cyberlink Power Director but thought that it's one advantage was its rendering speed -- despite its good reviews. dave riley You can also get VirtualDub Portable http://portableapps.com/apps/music_video/virtualdub_portable and Movie Maker Portable http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/23092-update-portable-original-movie-maker-for-7/ with 147 Transitions and 76 effects ...capturing some older features not in later releases. Handy apps for touring between PCs... dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Editing videos with more than one program
FYI You can also get VirtualDub Portable http://portableapps.com/apps/music_video/virtualdub_portable and Movie Maker Portable http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/23092-update-portable-original-movie-maker-for-7/ with 147 Transitions and 76 effects ...capturing some older features not in later releases. Handy apps for touring between PCs... dave riley
[videoblogging] Editing videos with more than one program
I realize that this a perennial topic but I suffer from dissatisfaction with my present editing protocol and software. I've been using Sony Vegas Platinum 9.0 and it's an OK way of handling clips but I find the text options cumbersome and too snazzy for my needs. What I really like are the easy and creative options offered for titling in Windows Movie Maker.But Movie Maker doesn't like handling too many clips and will often crash on me. So I've begun to edit up my videos elsewhere and finishing them off in Movie Maker so I can use the titling options. I like adding text to my videos in preference to the spoken word and MM has the titling bells and whistles I want to use. I've also gone back to using VirtualDub which is the fastest, cleanest and most precise tool I've ever had my mouse in.It makes editing so fast. After using it I get one clean clip to play with in Movie Maker if I need to. But I don't want to do TWO edits with TWO RENDERS if I can help it as I also use QuickTime to EXPORT for my web publishing format. The advantage is that compared to Sony Vegas the SAVE/Render time is much shorter in both Virtual Dub and Windows Movie Maker. So my question is:(aside from finishing off with QuickTime for us Windows Users) does anyone else rely on two editing programs to edit their videos? dave riley
[videoblogging] Editing videos with more than one program
I realize that this a perennial topic but I suffer from dissatisfaction with my present editing protocol and software. I've been using Sony Vegas Platinum 9.0 and it's an OK way of handling clips but I find the text options cumbersome and too snazzy for my needs. What I really like are the easy and creative options offered for titling in Windows Movie Maker.But Movie Maker doesn't like handling too many clips and will often crash on me. So I've begun to edit up my videos elsewhere and finishing them off in Movie Maker so I can use the titling options. I like adding text to my videos in preference to the spoken word and MM has the titling bells and whistles I want to use. I've also gone back to using VirtualDub which is the fastest, cleanest and most precise tool I've ever had my mouse in.It makes editing so fast. After using it I get one clean clip to play with in Movie Maker if I need to. But I don't want to do TWO edits with TWO RENDERS if I can help it as I also use QuickTime to EXPORT for my web publishing format. The advantage is that compared to Sony Vegas the SAVE/Render time is much shorter in both Virtual Dub and Windows Movie Maker. So my question is:(aside from finishing off with QuickTime for us Windows Users) does anyone else rely on two editing programs to edit their videos? dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Editing videos with more than one program
I should point out that I'm still experimenting. (1)Especially if I have a lot of clips to edit down I import them into VirtualDub (either direct Capture using VD or by using the capture option of another program) and edit away by paring down the content into a single file.VD imports successive files by name so that it pulls in sequences like 001, 002, 003, 004, etc and will do the same with image files.It is so fast and easy and you can get a precision cut so that other programs I've used seem cumbersome in comparison. (2)After the edit I 'SAVE AS AVI'. (3) Then I open up the same file in Movie Maker or Sony Vegas and proceed to add titles, trim, make a few cuts and add transitions. (3) I then RENDER to as much quality as I can muster then compress it for the web in QuickTime Pro. I edit my audio in Audacity. However, Virtual Dub offers audio grab just like SonyVegas but I need to review the literature on the DIY. MovieMaker has very limited audio editing functionality. While VirtualDub offers sub titling, it doesn't offer other text options nor the ability of importing single text images but I'm still researching that option and trying to find a work around. It seems to me that after the VirtualDub edit -- I can render much faster than I can with SonyVegas and, because I've concentrated all the original clips in the one file,I can import the video into Vegas or MovieMaker very quickly for another edit to add transitions, titles, etc. I have a bookmark archive on delicious for anyone who wants to follow up on VirtualDub (which is a free open sourced program for Windows): http://delicious.com/ratbagradio/virtualdub You can also obtain a copy of the VD Manual here: http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=virtualdub+manual What I'm interested in, and someone may have suggestions, is to be able to create titles on video clips separate from this protocol and import those into the edit. That way I only need to use VirtualDub. The issue is saving to the same format and while VD can handle many formats it can only handle one format at a time I find. Text on stills is easy -- but for various video text options and effects I have to depend on Vegas on MovieMaker(and MM is my favorite tool box in that regard -- although I loved the offerings from Pinnacle when I was using it). Technically you can do this with Virtual Dub too but you have to lay down the text frame by frame -- and that's a bit time consuming. Of course if you are animating... dave riley
[videoblogging] Hand hardware for rigging audio and video using a HiMD minidisc
Thanks Jay and Mark for the info on digital compresion etc.. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/75314 Since I'm on a roll with my out and about, here's my latest hardware escapade...[It suits me.] I've been experimenting with ways to carry my shooting rig around with me so that I can also hook it up to a recorder. I also wanted to run a microphone to the MiniDV camera -- a Canon MD 120. Since I had a HiMD recorder-- Sony MD Walkman MZ NH 700 -- with plug in power microphones to go with it I wanted to integrate the two systems. I also had learnt that if I'm on an assignment I needed to record much more audio than I'd videoed. I wanted a system which would enable me to keep the audio recording running while I selectively shot video . I also wanted better audio quality than the inbuilt microphone that came with the camera. And since I podcast audio and videoblog -- in effect I wanted to get the best out of two separate mediums. I had previously hung all this rig from bags and pouches on my person and it proved very cumbersome and hard to monitor and manipulate -- such as turning either device on or off. But I had been using the Ultrapod monopod for some time and loved it. The Ultrapod is a small, lightweight, folding camera tripod with adjustable ball socket head and Velcro securing strap. (I've also been using small camera tripods to support my microphones.) So with a bit of Velcro strapping, I combed the lot-- Voila! By rights -- and I've yet to confirm this -- the audio that runs from the HiMD should also be automatically gained before it is taken in as audio on the video as I run the HiMD audio out into the microphone in for the Video camera. Slideshow of hardware setup: http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/2009/07/hand-hardware-rig-for-shooting-video.html dave riley
[videoblogging] Editing for the web: the digital counndrum
It seems that I prefer to shoot and edit as though I'm a 21st century Eisenstein pretender: slim cuts, moving quickly through a short segment. While this may be my want I'm wondering how much digital mbs I'm leaving behind in the file that isn't actually being displayed so that my finished file edit is larger than it should be. Is this the case? If I layer many clips into the one editing project and drag each clip into short lengths is the full size of the original clips embedded (at least in part)and aggregated into the finished file as well as what actually plays as audio and video? Obviously the less a file is edited into segments the smoother it will play online so the less chop chopping you do the more web friendly your product, right? To put this another way: if I uploaded a clip which has not been cut and joined at all -- published as it was shot in the camera -- the file will be smaller and play better than one that is of the same length but made up of edited segments? If I was editing Super 8 film stock with a pair of scissors each cut could be disguarded and thrown in the bin but in the digital universe enlarging and cutting is about lengthening and reducing the clip by a simple slide of the mouse. If editing short and sharp is a problem for online use --- what protocols are best deployed to reduce the impact of so many edits.? dave riley
[videoblogging] Posting to blogs from blip.tv and YouTube
OI seem to have missed something in my efforts. I format my video files in h264 and QuickTime movie but when I post them automatically from Blip.Tv they arrive on my blog sites as .mov files when I prefer Flash. (And visitors need QuickTine installed to watch them online). Am I missing something, because I have to then copy/paste and embed Flash code...but I want to also a .mov file for download. Since YouTube now has an means to post vi a click to Facebook and MySpace, is there one that will do it for Blogger blogs yet? (Since Google now own both Blogger and YouTube). dave riley
[videoblogging] Promoting the .mov option online
YouTube habits have encouraged a ready use of flash players online. But few people I mix with are aware that the .mov file option I offer is a much better viewing experience. So what means do folk employ to get visitors to consider either downloading or watching the .mov file instead of the flash? My vids are often donwnloaded and screened so quality is an offline issue dave riley
[videoblogging] Video Journalism as videoblogging
Local ABC radio (Australia)here has a show called The Media Report. It's quite good on matters to do with old and new media. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/default.htm Anyway a recent segment on the foreign correspondant dealt with freelance video jounalists working alone with small video cameras and no 'team'. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/stories/2008/2432633.htm The example was of Sophie McNeill Journalist, Dateline, SBS TV and then later the segment showcased Global Voices http://globalvoicesonline.org/ Interesting perspective on the user gnerated reb volution as it impacts on video jouyrnalism. Does any one know of similar succesful web based projects that do for video what shows like FSRN does for audio? dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Vlogger starter kit
The mic problem is very challenging. I had a podcasting rig made up of a Sony (HiMD) minidisc player/recorder plus assorted plug in power microphones. These mics won't work plugged into my camera as they require a preamp. I had been using another vid camera (for a week)and that took the plug in power option -- so it may be worth while checking. The thought of having to retool for video was a bit frustrating. So I now use both the MD (HiMD) and my video camera -- a entry level Canon. I've now learnt that I can run my microphone in RECORD mode on the MD and harness the earphone out jack to shepherd the audio via lead into my camera at the external mic input. (With Sony MD you also get a remote control). Works quite well and I get excellent MD quality sound plus a back up audio disc if I want to add more audio inputs. If I'm out and about 'shooting', I run the MD all the time and RECORD video clips as required. It works and I have an assortment of microphone options I can deploy. While I can lead with my mic in hand and turn it wherever, I am finding it preferable to attach the mike to my indispensable Ultrapod -- a monopod -- which I strap to my forearm. (That means I walk around like I've got a brace on my wrist to which a camera is attached). Yes I am eccentric, but the proof of the pudding is... dave riley
[videoblogging] Making the most of h.264
I own up to a lot of confusion. When you follow the dictates of various videoblogging expertise the h.264 codec is a standard recommendation. Not h.263 or just MPEG.4 but it has to be the Real McCoy. Assuming that's correct I have a couple of questions: (1) Can a file only be rendered to h.264 by using QuickTime Pro? (2) Since I edit in Sony Vegas (Platinum 9.0)I have to render my video file in SV first BEFORE processing it in QuickTime. So what is the best format to render the file in Sony Vegas (or some other video editor) before importing it into Quicktime for exporting as .mov? (3) Mac snobbery aside, since I render a file twice, this seems a lot of extra effort and lot more time for the sake of image quality and iTunes download options. dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Making the most of h.264
Steve Watkins writes: What format do you encode to presently? Thanks Steve..I experimented with *Sony AVC* and created a template to engineer that. But I'm experimenting where I can. So I got myself Quicktime Pro and started to work that into my protocols and then this issue came up in regard to export/import settings. Heath writes: Like I said, I have been using Vegas, since I started, 3 years ago. I use the pro version now, so I do have quite a bit of knowledge on this.makes me realize, I should do a screencast on Vegas compression settings Yes you should as there are many confusions available on the web in regard to Vegas settings. One on compression for Vegas is here: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl_BM67VuRweurl Rendering AVC/H.264 Within Sony Vegas My son is needing of video compression too and we've started to have these debates about what protocols to use. So we swap notes and the note pile is getting higher everyday. dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Does the Blog format work for Vlogging anymore?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Krystian Morgan k...@... wrote: Actually in wordpress you can make a post stick at the top of the list like a featured post. And in Blogger you have a couple of hacks you can use to the same effect: (1) You can pre date the post to a future date so that it sits atop of the rest chronologically.This is certainly cumbersome if you have prominant date headers. (2)On most templates, you can post your featured video into a gadget/widget and drag and drop it into the main column of you blog so that it appears to be a post. (3) I've searched for other hacks and while I prefer to feature my latest video post on my top page I deploy a few means to draw attention to more wares in the same way that the Ryan is Hungry http://ryanishungry.com/ does at the bottom of the page. You can use aggregators like Vodpod to do this and showcase your own stuff or I use a scroll bar to showcase thumbnails . EG: overflow-x and overflow-y div align=centerdiv style=overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: auto; width: 75%; height: 100px;[PUT LINKED TO THUMBNAILS HERE] /div I'm very new to videoblogging but I have been hacking templates for podcasting for about three years (not thats' I'm any good) and I think there's a different requirement with video as many posters have flagged in this thread. And the Ryan is Hungry format solves a few problems as does the Hemingway designed by Warpspire I use: http://warpspire.com/hemingway/ which you can get both for Blogger and Wordpress. But it isn't very hackable if you want to tweak it some more.(Although hacks do exist). But here it is for Blogger: http://tabo.aurealsys.com/templates/hemingway-template-for-blogger/ dave riley http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Does the Blog format work for Vlogging anymore?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathpa...@... wrote: So I go back to my first statement and ask, Is RSS in effect part of the problem? Is it so easy now to just watch that we are becoming passive? That we no longer care about the communication or the connections that can develop? I think it has to be horses for courses and you have to package content a number of ways to cater to individual preferences. People approach the web differently and no one size fits all. As for connections and the community feel you have to go with the flow...You cannot demand that people hang out the way you'd prefer them to as, I guess, that's has as much to do with your own personality and video-ing attitude as anything else. The hardware -- the feed, the site -- are surely secondary to that. I think discussion lists can make -- potentially at least -- great communities -- but not all discussion lists are going to foster ongoing interactions in the sense of identification and 'loyalty'. I'm on 'x' number of elists and monitor 'y' number of blogs but I choose to interact actively in very few of them. It's like there's this Holy Grail on the web that presumes that if you do 'a' and 'b' you get yourself a bona fide web neighborhood. I don't think it works lineally like that.People do not have that capacity unless they are obsessive. However, the very nature of videoblogging -- because it can often be so intimate and exposing -- tends to push the engagement onto the visitor in a way that other media may not. This is why, in part I believe, video deployment on the web has exploded in the way that audio has not.Its' very: me. So in one sense there's all these TV channels being created whose precept is that they are not like console television but something else that is still as yet an unknown. An contrary example I think is the Miro/Democracy Player which tries to foster a counter media network driven by RSS feeds. Surely that's one community model that relies on an aggregation broader than individual stall holders. Then there is YouTube which is -- to be frank -- a video jungle. But you are going to get many layers and variations and it would be presumptuous to think that one broadcast model will rule them all. This is the web afterall which is premised on anarchy and a good deal of chaos. This is partly why its so hard to make money off the web I guess because in a universe of that size and of such creativity (an extraordinary explosion of creativity the likes of which we humans have never seen before) it's so very easy to be fickle. MySpace one year/Facebook the next. So when you create your own share of it -- your site --you are creating a decorated portal or cabinet where you display your personal wares -- customized just so to reflect on its owner. If that's not your preference then you may as well simply stick with the feed option and forget all about the branding thing with its little decorative nuances and written up additions. Therss' nothing wrong with that. dave riley
[videoblogging] Re: Does the Blog format work for Vlogging anymore?
The core complication isn't so much video per se but the whole Web 2.0
multimedia explosion. Text is easy to format and showcase -- we've
been laying it out for centuries -- but digital media is a major
complication.
I come from audio blogging/podcasting and the rot sets in when you try
to combine media elements -- in my case: text + audio + digital
presentations ('powerpoints') + slide shows + videos. While this
discussion list no doubt has some QuickTime preferences the unifying
(and contradictory) element on the web is flash media.
That changes the dialogue a lot.
In mindset I'm a total bloggerfile as I know nuthin' else to speak
about so I tend to pursue the glorious quest of trying to get as much
return as I can from the one blog platform -- in my case , Blogger.
Thats' all I know.
Nonetheless I think the Blip TV channel player is the best media
showcase hardware I've come across on the web. So that guests on my
videoblog too.
Elsewhere I am very eclectic and in other blogs I work on I like to
use Vodpod widgets and the new Vodspot platform.
http://blog.vodpod.com/2008/12/09/announcing-vodspot/
and I cross post like mad --albeit selectively.
While I will subscribe keenly to an audio feed and automatically
download the Mp3 files I won't do that for video, preferring instead
to monitor videoblogging sites by subscribing to their feeds in Google
reader. I then quickly review their content before deciding to
continue watching. ( I don't however sample audio like that.)
So what the site looks like is neither here nor there as RSS rules.
Nonetheless with site showcasing -- and I do this with audio -- it is
often useful to divide up your offerings into themes. I currently
offer standalone players for Best of my videos, Videos from
elsewhere and my own all-in channel in the same way that I always
divide up my audio wares and offer them in pop up players.
But the reality is, I fear, that no one knows how to design the best
of all possible web or video sites so there are all these people
working away at the coal face, tweaking as they go -- designing a
better mousetrap
Nonethless,some of the best video feeds I subscribe can emanate from
the most sterile of CSS sites. So let's not get too caught up in
form over content.
dave riley
http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/
[videoblogging] Editing Program Publishing Options
While I'm new to videoblogging I'm keen to quickly explore my options. The recommendations for publishing online carried in BlipTV http://blip.tv/learning/export/ seem to parallel those promoted by other sources such as Dedman, etc. I've got a low RAM pc such that many video editing programs are ponderous on it. So, after exploring my options I thought I'd simply stick with Movie Maker -- although it presents a few SAVE AS issues. MM has all I need in way of bells and whistles but it has an extremely annoying cut tool which I find very difficult to deploy the way I want. So I'm learning to use VirtualDub which slices and dices like the best kitchen helper tool. There's no comparison in the way Virtual Dub cuts the clips and its better than Ulead and Pinnacle, I think, in that regard. The ebook manual written for it is very comnprehensive: http://www.packtpub.com/virtualdub/book. On a good run you cat slice in a twice. I gather there are quite a few folk in the video universe who prefer to combine VirtualDub with Movie Maker so I was wandering what sort of capture to publish protocol they followed? I assume that finishing off would also involved QuickTime Pro prior to upload -- so that's three program tools for the one end result. I've got no issues with that. I just want precise control over my slices and dices... [The annoying thing is that it is complicated to go Movie Maker to VirtualDub as the audio on the DV-AVI files won't necessarily process in VirtualDub. So I assume you gotta go VirtualDub Movie Maker QuickTime Pro Web upload. But what's the preferred SAVE AS en route for videoblogging? I sure folk have their preferences.) dave riley http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/
[videoblogging] Vodpod
I was going to write something about Vodpod a few days ago but Vodpod and I had a misunderstanding. [But now we're sweet and I was wrong.So I'm eating crow.*] Vodpod http://vodpod.com/ is a video aggregator which functions as a Firefox add on. It's rather neat https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5685 and , in effect, you can create your own video channel/web TV station. Vodpod also grabs other flash players too such as slideshows. I know that platforms like Blip TV and Vimeo provide excellent embeddable flash players -- but if you'd want to showcase the best the vlogging community can offer on your own site by selectively sharing episodes of your favs regardless of where they are housed; or if you just want to showcase your own best of effort vlogs -- I think Vopdpod may be of use to you. One thing I learnt podcasting is that it is often very useful to offer category content in some instances. It's easy to create specific feeds built from labels or tagsand share them as RSS. This isn't RSS so much like that as it won't offer an enclosure -- but it will draw attention to new flash player content on the web: from YouTube, Blip, Vimeo, whatever ..depending on your selection. I appreciate that because I can review the content before having to proceed with the stream or download. This is the complication I feel with Miro if you have slow internet as we do here in Australia. So I'm saying you can aggregate your own content into any number of channels dave riley http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/ * Eating crow (archaically, eatin boiled crow) is an English idiom meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong after taking a strong position.
[videoblogging] Shorter snippets. -- Re: Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
AS JAY pointed out:I always wanted to see podcasters record stories with people. Shorter snippets. Maybe audio diaries. Maybe just a bunch of natural sounds? Give me a good 10 minutes of something I cant hear on the radio. In my very newbie status I have been overwhelmed -- I think that's the right verb -- by the language of the short video on the web. The Lumiere archive for instance http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ is vibrantly beautiful, as well as engaging and addictive..all within the space of 60 seconds of recorded time. It has caused me to rethink so many of my assumptions, and , I guess schemata. I've been much interested in Marshall McLuhan's ideas on media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_mcluhan but when I watch videoblogging (as it is practiced in a conscious sort of way) a lot of these concepts about cold/hot media valuations go out the (Microsoft) window. While there is such a thing as New Media -- there is, I think, NewEST media within that too because it seems to me that so much of what people do on the web is formatted by Old Media templates. Being novel isn't really that useful -- but if you can deploy a new language to say, in some significant degree, something new...well, then the world's your oyster. Going back to where we stared on this thread I have to agree -- that (audio) podcasting is about replicating radio in another sharing format. I think that's fantastic and I thing that's something to support and relate to. But it is/was, nonetheless, about re-inventing the wheel. I've got no special audio skills (and no video ones whatsoever)but I do appreciate differently a lot of audio I hear occasionally on the web for the special moments it offers you. I think This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/ can capture many of such moments -- in the same way that an interview with the recently diseased Studs Terkel so often did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studs_terkel So podcasting enriches our radio experience especially for those who may not have been exposed to it before or who have fallen out of the habit of listening to it. There's so much more to it than talk back and Top 40. But videoblogging -- in the sense of what may be discussed here -- isn't about replicating Prime Time at all. When FM first came to Australia in 1975 you could listen to soundscapes on the national broadcaster -- like as Jay suggested. They were terribly arty and self conscious experiences in sound and they went for far too long -- but the FM band was supposed to do them justice in way of quality of sound. Of course that's now all been lost and is now thought simply to be the an avaunt garde indulgence -- even if it so much was! But I was reading Jays' book on videoblogging the other night and I watched Cut per the recommendation therein... http://e11.video.blip.tv/183406371/FastMovingAnimals-cut790.mov and I thought it was amazing. I called in my family folk in to watch it. So while I may now be getting on in years and can remember a life without television in every home -- I can still be impressed with the novel potential of videoblogging because, in a very tantalizing sort of way, a format limitation in regard to file size imposes a sort of creative possibility and a level of communication we haven't been offered before. dave riley
[videoblogging] Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
Hi, I'm brand new to the list. Located in Brisbane, Australia. For the past few years I've been a podcaster and I produce a few podcasts on various topics. I also have recorded a few public gatherings for web sharing While I used to deploy slideshows and digital presentations in my blogs as well as sharing a selected range of videos grabbed from all over, it was only very recently I switched to video mode in my out and about. While I'm waiting for my mini dv camera to come back from the shop, my main tool has been an Olympus FE-270 digital camera. I stuck a bit of windsock to the inbuilt mic to suppress wind turbulence and started shooting. The irony is that despite all the drawbacks I rather appreciate the ease of this little digital camera as I could plug in into any usb port to upload the files.(I half think I should have got one of those digital camera hybrids like the Canon Powershot!) So I'm still interested in video shot on digital cameras. I'm also interested in sound recording options using minidisc recorders. I see where there has been some exchanges on that matter here. Already , out and about, I'm starting to run my Minidisc recorder at the same time as I shoot video so that I get a separate audio AND a visual record of the event(which I can podcast two --either/both -- ways)*. But I'm hoping to use the MD as a unit between my microphones and the mini dv camera when I get the thing back from repairs. But there's one thing that strikes me vis a vis video podcasting/blogging and audio podcasting/blogging: editing video is so much easier to do (and do well) than editing audio because there's these easy to follow visual markers. I find it a bit amazing actually: video editing is a breeze compared to all the reviewing you have to do with audio tracts alone. Video is another language of course and you need less in the way of orchestrated inputs to 'set the scene' or advance the narrative. Now I thought that audio podcasting covered a lot of options in way of themes -- from the personal monologue, to interviews, to whatever really. I'm not too keen on the audio podcasts that package the views of one person talking as so often they don't have much of value to say unless it is carefully pitched to explore a set topic. But video -- vlogging -- is strangely intimate, and so much more engaging than one voice over the web. It's a very different type of communication -- different again from what you are exposed to on television. (And if you want to get into this topic, what stimulated me the most was the work of Iranian film director, Abbas Kiarostami, whose 10 changed my perception of video completely). It is a very personal medium and I find it much easier to relax in front of a video camera than I can with a microphone stuck under my nose recording just audio. I also never thought that video would take off on the web the way it has. The side effect of that, it seems to me, is that there is still a lot of respect paid to being succinct and to the point -- if only to keep file size down. The other difference is that video lasts longer -- has a longer shelf life -- on the web -- than audio. This is partly due to the fact that video is easier to locate, but it is also a medium than is not treated as something esoteric, maybe even archaic, as audio seems to often be. While I may respect audio and radio especially as a medium it doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to listen as I do to 'x' number of podcasts each and every week. So I'm in the process of moving from podcasting blogging -- text plus audio -- to a setup where I utilize more vlogging ad I reckon there is magical wisdom in the multimedia mix. dave riley *I run the audio recoding all the time and select what I want to shoot.
[videoblogging] Re: Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I actually listen to a handful of podcasts that give good information and dont waste my time. For what it's worth there are two other differences between the two media in way of delivery: (1) For producers of content, file hosting is much easier and generally more accessible for video than for audio. That's a Web.2.0 anomaly I'm sure. (2) I don't think audio is as well served with portable flash options as video is. I mean that a flash video player is so often built to be ported throughout the web, whereas flash audio players are at best aggregators. While both value the RSS component, audio podcasting tended to be satisfied with the subscription option and tends more to be theme driven programming offering episodes. Usually you can select any video on the web and share it by a number of ways. There is one big difference that I'm very aware of and that is that the option to locate audio and video enclosures on the one feed can annoy your subscribers -- esp those who expect smaller audio files that can be played only in mp3 players. So I'm keen not to add video to my podcast feeds but to offer a subscription link separate from that. Other than that, I know diddly squat about video blogging aside from what I'm learning DIY. (And I gotta say I that I've learnt so much of what I may know from what is shared by folk such as yourself -- Jay Dedman.) dave riley
