Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
On iHD and high bit rate files: One of the things that helped popularize Rocketboom initially was that I was one of the first to regularly distribute video content with enclosures. At the time, the audience (audio podcasters) was growing a great rate, but there was almost no video content to d/l. This was a first to market advantage for those of us that implemented the specs. I see the same thing occurring now for iHD. Maybe it wont take off in the same way, maybe it will do nothing for those that adopt such a file for distribution, though I believe there is a great chance that it will, if people also respond to the content. Have you met anyone with an HD TV? They often become obsessed and fanatical about the quality. Its as if they put on glasses for the first time in their lives and then become disappointed at anything less. Our daily Rocketboom files are under 100mb and most people can play them right from the browser. Also, while 640x480 is also a good way to up the ante on your files for the upcoming iTV onslaught, iHD files can be in .mov format too, and thus look great on bigger screens of any kind, HD or not. On Dec 18, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Mike Meiser wrote: Well said andreas. I love my $150 a520. It shoots video just fine and is one of the most popular camera's on Flickr. It's cheap, effective, I don't have to worry about destroying it because it doesn't cost much, and it's very portable and convienient so I can always cary it on me. Then again, those xacti's are looking pretty cool to... but I'll almost certainly stick with something a little more photog focused. The other thing about shooting on the cheap is it saves in other places too. Smaller videos are easier to edit and transcode, and take up less hard drive space and are therefore easier to manage. they also take less time to upload to your server, and use up less bandwidth. It also takes up less space on the Flash card so you can shoot more stuff and experiment more freely. The bottom line is cheap and dirty is more fun and easy. I read recently that something like 99% of all digital camera users never print their photos larger than 8x10 and most no larger than 5x7. Of which 2 megapixels is more than enough resolution. There was also an impromptu excersize, I think it was David Pogue where most people couldn't even tell the difference between a 3 megapixel image blown up poster size and an 11 megapixel. I'm a fan of the Faux Press way of doing things. When you're just communicating quick and dirty is always the best way to go. HD is vanity. But that just goes for communics... I think entertainment may require a different approach. On the other hand... some of these vlogs tend to be more like shows or minidocumentaries. For example... what I wouldn't give to see all Bill Streeter's minidocumentaries on the local St. Louis culture in HD. Roller derby girls, regional semi-professional wrestling, minidocs on local printmakers, musicans and artists. I guess my point is... whatever is... most of us are not profeesional photographers, most of us are not professional videographers... we're not shooting TV shows, or hollywood movies. Or photos won't be published as posters. I don't know what HD video camera's are going for, but you can now get an 8 megapixel camera for under $200. So 99% of us will never use this extra resolution in video or photo, but we spend dearly for it and it costs us in all areas from storage, to editing, to uploading time, to bandwidth... and for what reason. Sure there's a few people on this mailing list whom could consider HD, but it's a falacy. My suggestion would be screw that crap, go for the features. Go for a better optical zoom. Go for a higher ISO, better shooting at low light. Go for the ability to shoot more video and experiment more. Megapixels and definition are falacy. Finally... this is why I love the mobilvlogging and phenom... it is the epitome of the quick and dirty approach. It counteracts, is the antidote to, the falacy of HD and resolution. The tazer incident at UCLA (it was UCLA right?) illustrates this. I always liked that Jan of Faux press, one of the people among us who truely knows the value of fidelity and whom works on high budget films and documentaries uses as her everday instrament of vlogging a video phone. And it's exactly this approach I'd recommend. The old one two punch. :) Sure... for your studio work or professional go ahead and use HD cam, but just remember to leave that camera at home and carry around a cheap phone cam, or cheaper xacti, or some compact camera like any of the low end digital camera that shoot video. It's the content, that rules... the meat of the post, the words coming out of your mouth that contain the meaning... not that one can see the mole on your ear. Oh! One final suggestion. I've found that it's not the resolution it's the size of the stage, the
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :) Just found this, MM. Thanks for the kudos. Use the proper medium for the job. Then break that rule. I don't understand why folks insist on doing long interviews on camera. Television is one thing, where eyeballs-to-ads count. Sure, we want to see a bit of the subject, but that doesn't mean we want to look at them for a half hour or an hour. That said, we *do like to process body language...so, there's that. Is there a middle ground for internet delivery of interviews? Enough body language to get the flavor, but... Oh, nevermind. Jan, I also wonder what the middle ground for interviews would be. I have been doing interviews with political activists on my website http://www.ferdeggan.net in a section called Revolution is an eternal dream. I post 10 minutes of interview each week. I use a completely static camera and struggle to get a decent sound quality, which does not always work. I always tell myself that I am doing an anti-TV or anti-Ken Burns piece, and that camera motion and b-roll etc would be a capitulation to slickness. Sometimes I say leftists talking about theory are engaged in an activity that requires stillness and careful thought, unlike agitprop type work. All that may be rationalization. What do you think might be a more successful way? Ferd
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
:) Just found this, MM. Thanks for the kudos. Use the proper medium for the job. Then break that rule. I don't understand why folks insist on doing long interviews on camera. Television is one thing, where eyeballs-to-ads count. Sure, we want to see a bit of the subject, but that doesn't mean we want to look at them for a half hour or an hour. That said, we *do like to process body language...so, there's that. Is there a middle ground for internet delivery of interviews? Enough body language to get the flavor, but... Oh, nevermind. Jan On 12/18/06, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well said andreas. I love my $150 a520. It shoots video just fine and is one of the most popular camera's on Flickr. It's cheap, effective, I don't have to worry about destroying it because it doesn't cost much, and it's very portable and convienient so I can always cary it on me. Then again, those xacti's are looking pretty cool to... but I'll almost certainly stick with something a little more photog focused. The other thing about shooting on the cheap is it saves in other places too. Smaller videos are easier to edit and transcode, and take up less hard drive space and are therefore easier to manage. they also take less time to upload to your server, and use up less bandwidth. It also takes up less space on the Flash card so you can shoot more stuff and experiment more freely. The bottom line is cheap and dirty is more fun and easy. I read recently that something like 99% of all digital camera users never print their photos larger than 8x10 and most no larger than 5x7. Of which 2 megapixels is more than enough resolution. There was also an impromptu excersize, I think it was David Pogue where most people couldn't even tell the difference between a 3 megapixel image blown up poster size and an 11 megapixel. I'm a fan of the Faux Press way of doing things. When you're just communicating quick and dirty is always the best way to go. HD is vanity. But that just goes for communics... I think entertainment may require a different approach. On the other hand... some of these vlogs tend to be more like shows or minidocumentaries. For example... what I wouldn't give to see all Bill Streeter's minidocumentaries on the local St. Louis culture in HD. Roller derby girls, regional semi-professional wrestling, minidocs on local printmakers, musicans and artists. I guess my point is... whatever is... most of us are not profeesional photographers, most of us are not professional videographers... we're not shooting TV shows, or hollywood movies. Or photos won't be published as posters. I don't know what HD video camera's are going for, but you can now get an 8 megapixel camera for under $200. So 99% of us will never use this extra resolution in video or photo, but we spend dearly for it and it costs us in all areas from storage, to editing, to uploading time, to bandwidth... and for what reason. Sure there's a few people on this mailing list whom could consider HD, but it's a falacy. My suggestion would be screw that crap, go for the features. Go for a better optical zoom. Go for a higher ISO, better shooting at low light. Go for the ability to shoot more video and experiment more. Megapixels and definition are falacy. Finally... this is why I love the mobilvlogging and phenom... it is the epitome of the quick and dirty approach. It counteracts, is the antidote to, the falacy of HD and resolution. The tazer incident at UCLA (it was UCLA right?) illustrates this. I always liked that Jan of Faux press, one of the people among us who truely knows the value of fidelity and whom works on high budget films and documentaries uses as her everday instrament of vlogging a video phone. And it's exactly this approach I'd recommend. The old one two punch. :) Sure... for your studio work or professional go ahead and use HD cam, but just remember to leave that camera at home and carry around a cheap phone cam, or cheaper xacti, or some compact camera like any of the low end digital camera that shoot video. It's the content, that rules... the meat of the post, the words coming out of your mouth that contain the meaning... not that one can see the mole on your ear. Oh! One final suggestion. I've found that it's not the resolution it's the size of the stage, the footprint on the screen. I think there's a strong preference for video about 500pixels or more wide... but it has nothing to do with resolution. It has to do with sitting back a little from the screen and relaxing the eyes. Taking the average 320x240 video and embedding it at 500 pixels wide is a great trick. The eye cannot percieve every single pixel at 15 frames a second. I think this would be the most useful think I can recommend. My approach is more of usability and accessibility. So.. perhaps that helps. Or maybe it's just rambling. :) Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
I just checked out Jay Ryanne's Podtech Deal ( http://blip.tv/file/118131/ ). I'll assume that was shot on the exacti hd camera, and I'll assume that I've seen stuff that they've shot in that same room and posted from a different camera, and potentially with different compression. I have to say it was way more immersive, visually, than other videos I've seen from them. The sense of being there was way more pronounced, which may be due to shooting with a camera with higher light sensitivities and better resolution (even if down-converted to SD for editing). I think the camera you use makes a difference as far as the look of your show. Whether that means it's HD or has a particular lens or shoots 24p or whatever, I think we should test drive cameras as often as possible before purchasing them in order to see if they fit in with what we're trying to do. I like Canon miniDV @ 16:9, personally, but I've seen some really nice HDV on a Sony HC3, and as Steve points out, technology's always changing and making HD more efficient and accessible to the average joe/josephine. I'll also be interested to see if HD pans out the way people think it will. Originally, 4x3 televisions were supposed to be obsolete by 2006... Now that it's 2006, they're supposed to be obsolete in 2008 :/ Big Brother was supposed to appear in 1984! :D A lot of people aren't aware of the difference between a change in ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 and a change from SD to HD. They're not aware of how much it takes to bring HD content to the viewer's eye in their living room. It has to be shot in HD, edited (or at least onlined) in HD, broadcast in HD, received in HD and played on an HD television. On top of that, for a station to switch to HD, they're going to have to repackage or abandon all their 4:3 programming. If you switch from ESPN to ESPNHD (or whatever they call it), there's an obvious difference, so stations will have to choose to broadcast 4:3 SD on their 16:9 HD channels, or rely on all-new content. I'll also be interested to see what the role of independent content producers will be once new standards are set and the big wheels get in motion. Then again, this all has to do with television and not internet video. I think that if you feel your show would be enhanced by shooting 16:9 or HDV or HD, then it might be worth it for you. I know http://BeachWalks.TV is shot in either HD or HDV, and I'm pretty sure http://JetSetShow.com is as well. I watch both of those for content, not because they're shot in high resolution and well-compressed. If it's within your budget, and it makes you feel better about your show... go for it! :D --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah thats true. Some of your figures are slightly out, and its no longer only top-of-the-range machines that meet the spec, but yeah. And then there is the monitor - most of the computer lcd displays that can do 1920x1080 are still rather pricey and usually at least 23 in size. When I used to go on too much about compression and formats, I liked the look of half-1080p footage. So thats video thats 960x540. Even using h264 that should playback ok on things like G4 Macs, and is a god compromise in other areas. Also gets rid of interlacing issues for those whose cameras do 1080i but not 1080p. But just like a year ago Im not proposing people should all be aiming to do web video at 960x540, just that it may make sense for certain projects to dabble with it. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: Windows Media HD Content Showcase: http://tinyurl.com/lrsj7 System Requirements Minimum configuration for 720p 2.4 GHz processor or equivalent 384 MB of RAM Obviously, 1080p requires even more firepower. Placing HD content on the net is useless to everyone except those with the top-of-the-line computers right now. It's not even a download/bandwidth issue. Even if they download it, they can't play it. 720p = 1280w + 720h @ 60fps iPod = 320w + 180h @ 30fps other = 480w + 270h @ 15fps
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Are you still watching videoblogs? Does it really matter that Galacticast (or, insert favorite vlog here) isn't HD? I completely agree that HD is beautiful, but I have yet to experience it at home day in and day out. But in the end, I personally am more interested in the content. I've heard some people say they could watch paint dry in HD. To which I say, go for it. I'm still pretty close to the tv industry - I own a software company that caters to it - and most of the projects are just now migrating to HD...and they're not shooting 1080p. We've had a difficult enough time trying to figure out production workflows with 720p and 1080i. I'm not sure how long it'll take to figure out and adopt 1080p. What I'm interested in is what happens in the next 3 years. The new thing being pitched is 1080p. The problem is, who's broadcasting it? Will all the networks agree to it as the standard? Some are using 720p, others 1080i. If they do agree, how long will it take them to switch? Finally, how does all of this play out with RSS as a challenger for a delivery mechanism? Negroponte (Meiser, thanks for the lead) refers to HD as 'stillborn' in being digital, URL: http://www.amazon.com/Being-Digital-Vintage- Nicholas-Negroponte/dp/0679762906 because of the speed of the television industry vs. the speed of the computer industry. He also discusses about an experiment by Russ Neuman where people viewed the same video, on the same equipment, where the only difference was the quality of the audio. His discovery? That the better audio changed people's perception that they were viewing a higher quality image. Personally, I've decided to keep my money in the bank until it all plays out. On a side note, I helped to produce a HD pilot for a major tv network in 2000 (it didn't get picked up). I remember how we marveled at the fact we could see raindrops on the windshield of a car, and could actually read the numbers on a police officer's badge. This is back when we were learning about producing using the new format, and found out about such issues as audio noise related to fans in the camera turning on after a certain period of time to help cool the CCDs. Try tracking that one down in the middle of a shoot! :-) On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:43 AM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote: Posted by: Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] scobleizer Date: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:22 pm ((PST)) You're right, of course. I just upgraded to DirectTV myself and hate that I don't have much choice in PVRs. But, sorry, I can't watch SD content anymore. It looks like crap once you have HD. Everyone who has bought a new HD set says the same thing. Getting HD is a transformative experience. The lack of support (and lack of content) is just a temporary speed bump. Robert
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Yeah, going through the same decision. 24p or HD. Can't we just have both on the same camera for under $2k? :( Maybe someday. My brother shot most of his short films using the DVX, and it looks fantastic, but the stuff out of the HC1 and other Sony HD cameras looks wonderful in their own way. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give it up for content y'al! I certainly lust after an HD television. Our friend has a sweet 42 Panasonic and we're always in awe of the HD experience. So... what does that have to do with videoblogging? Not a whole lot today, not something most vloggers need to worry about. But tomorrow is coming quick. Rocketboom has their stuff in HD. I shoot on a Sony HC1 which is small and not very expensive. However I hardly ever edit in HD - I basically think of it as a really good SD camera with sharp detail. But I've got that footage in HD should I have an opportunity to show a video on TV, or in a theater, or online. Strangely enough, I'm considering ditching the HC1 for a Panasonic DVX. I just love the 24p look, and the gamme curves (or whatever) that just look fantastic. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: 1) Shoot using the cheapest camera you can find. 2) Embrace compression artifacts. 3) Rejoice, send me a link and spend the money you save on things that actually matter (hint: it's not a green screen). - Andreas Den 18.12.2006 kl. 01:58 skrev Joshua Paul joshpaul@: Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content. http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Oh, heck, went to leave you a comment but the captcha wasn't generating an image. Commenting here: rockin'. Jan On 12/17/06, Joshua Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content. http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250 -- joshpaul -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Yeah I agree. As near as I can tell though, the service that most of the telcos are rolling out is a set-top box that just substitutes the cable part ot cable tv with a telco internet connection. The service and content they will(or are--in test markets) offer will be basically the same as what you get from digital cable--same old channels, same old content etc. I don't think that consumer media or micro media or video blogs are even on their radar. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, Bill - a bit off-topic - but the Verizon installation tech must have said, They're rolling out FIOS TV next month, so we're all jumping around like crazy, learning... at least half a dozen times. Verizon sent me a FedEx announcement of the fiber optic rollout. They're creaming in their jeans over fiber optic delivery systems because that means TV for the computer masses who've drifted away from the boob tube. Do you think watching television on a computer will solve the masses' problem with television? Jan P.S. On topic, I'm just a bit bored with having to keep up with the latest, greatest everything everywhere in order to be taken seriously. On 12/16/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't post video online now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. I'm a little dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with broadband penetration as broad as it is now, it's still not fast enough to handle HD (for average consumer demand.) All the phone companies are working on rolling out fiber to at least within a mile of everyones front door, but at least 70% of that new capacity will be used up to provide their own proprietary television services that will compete with cable tv, leaving the other 30% (or less) of the capacity for other data service. And that can be stifled by content type if it appears that it threatens their other business (subscription television). Thus the big brew ha-ha over net neutrality last year. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble robertscoble@ wrote: I'm only using HD camcorders. Why? For one, the image I get is much higher quality overall. My $4,000 Sony can shoot in low light, has better image stableization than the $700 Panasonic cameras I used at Microsoft, and I like the widescreen format better. The images are also better sharpness before compression and I find they compress better too. But, that's not really the reason I'm using them. I expect that sometime in the next 18 months that old-school TV distribution networks are gonna need HD content and need it bad. I'll have it. Also, look at new school distribution networks that are popping up like Tivo, Xbox, Playstation. All are looking for HD content. Plus, if you ever want to show your videos off in HD, say, in a conference setting, or at a future Vloggies, or something like that, having HD originals will make you shine in those places and if you are shooting some video for home use, some for videoblogging, and some for friends and/or company, you'll want HD, especially if you have an HD screen. My video on my Sony 60-inch is stunning. Makes me look like the Discovery Channel. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com[mailto: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:34 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet? I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] basically the same as what you get from digital cable--same old channels, same old content etc. I don't think that consumer media or micro media or video blogs are even on their radar. you are correct sir.. ;) In cincinnati, the bell here is laying fiber to promote an alternative to Time Warner, etc, but they are just looking at TVbut I did here they are looking at ways to download content, but I am sure that is just regular stuff as well.vlogs, web video, whatever you want to call it, is not on their radar Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press jannie.jan@ wrote: Yeah, Bill - a bit off-topic - but the Verizon installation tech must have said, They're rolling out FIOS TV next month, so we're all jumping around like crazy, learning... at least half a dozen times. Verizon sent me a FedEx announcement of the fiber optic rollout. They're creaming in their jeans over fiber optic delivery systems because that means TV for the computer masses who've drifted away from the boob tube. Do you think watching television on a computer will solve the masses' problem with television? Jan P.S. On topic, I'm just a bit bored with having to keep up with the latest, greatest everything everywhere in order to be taken seriously. On 12/16/06, Bill Streeter bill@ wrote: I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't post video online now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. I'm a little dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with broadband penetration as broad as it is now, it's still not fast enough to handle HD (for average consumer demand.) All the phone companies are working on rolling out fiber to at least within a mile of everyones front door, but at least 70% of that new capacity will be used up to provide their own proprietary television services that will compete with cable tv, leaving the other 30% (or less) of the capacity for other data service. And that can be stifled by content type if it appears that it threatens their other business (subscription television). Thus the big brew ha-ha over net neutrality last year. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble robertscoble@ wrote: I'm only using HD camcorders. Why? For one, the image I get is much higher quality overall. My $4,000 Sony can shoot in low light, has better image stableization than the $700 Panasonic cameras I used at Microsoft, and I like the widescreen format better. The images are also better sharpness before compression and I find they compress better too. But, that's not really the reason I'm using them. I expect that sometime in the next 18 months that old-school TV distribution networks are gonna need HD content and need it bad. I'll have it. Also, look at new school distribution networks that are popping up like Tivo, Xbox, Playstation. All are looking for HD content. Plus, if you ever want to show your videos off in HD, say, in a conference setting, or at a future Vloggies, or something like that, having HD originals will make you shine in those places and if you are shooting some video for home use, some for videoblogging, and some for friends and/or company, you'll want HD, especially if you have an HD screen. My video on my Sony 60-inch is stunning. Makes me look like the Discovery Channel. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com[mailto: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:34 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet? I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Thanks for the head's up...fixed. On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:42 PM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote: Posted by: Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] thefauxpress Date: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:35 am ((PST)) Oh, heck, went to leave you a comment but the captcha wasn't generating an image. Commenting here: rockin'. Jan On 12/17/06, Joshua Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content. http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250 -- joshpaul
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Well said andreas. I love my $150 a520. It shoots video just fine and is one of the most popular camera's on Flickr. It's cheap, effective, I don't have to worry about destroying it because it doesn't cost much, and it's very portable and convienient so I can always cary it on me. Then again, those xacti's are looking pretty cool to... but I'll almost certainly stick with something a little more photog focused. The other thing about shooting on the cheap is it saves in other places too. Smaller videos are easier to edit and transcode, and take up less hard drive space and are therefore easier to manage. they also take less time to upload to your server, and use up less bandwidth. It also takes up less space on the Flash card so you can shoot more stuff and experiment more freely. The bottom line is cheap and dirty is more fun and easy. I read recently that something like 99% of all digital camera users never print their photos larger than 8x10 and most no larger than 5x7. Of which 2 megapixels is more than enough resolution. There was also an impromptu excersize, I think it was David Pogue where most people couldn't even tell the difference between a 3 megapixel image blown up poster size and an 11 megapixel. I'm a fan of the Faux Press way of doing things. When you're just communicating quick and dirty is always the best way to go. HD is vanity. But that just goes for communics... I think entertainment may require a different approach. On the other hand... some of these vlogs tend to be more like shows or minidocumentaries. For example... what I wouldn't give to see all Bill Streeter's minidocumentaries on the local St. Louis culture in HD. Roller derby girls, regional semi-professional wrestling, minidocs on local printmakers, musicans and artists. I guess my point is... whatever is... most of us are not profeesional photographers, most of us are not professional videographers... we're not shooting TV shows, or hollywood movies. Or photos won't be published as posters. I don't know what HD video camera's are going for, but you can now get an 8 megapixel camera for under $200. So 99% of us will never use this extra resolution in video or photo, but we spend dearly for it and it costs us in all areas from storage, to editing, to uploading time, to bandwidth... and for what reason. Sure there's a few people on this mailing list whom could consider HD, but it's a falacy. My suggestion would be screw that crap, go for the features. Go for a better optical zoom. Go for a higher ISO, better shooting at low light. Go for the ability to shoot more video and experiment more. Megapixels and definition are falacy. Finally... this is why I love the mobilvlogging and phenom... it is the epitome of the quick and dirty approach. It counteracts, is the antidote to, the falacy of HD and resolution. The tazer incident at UCLA (it was UCLA right?) illustrates this. I always liked that Jan of Faux press, one of the people among us who truely knows the value of fidelity and whom works on high budget films and documentaries uses as her everday instrament of vlogging a video phone. And it's exactly this approach I'd recommend. The old one two punch. :) Sure... for your studio work or professional go ahead and use HD cam, but just remember to leave that camera at home and carry around a cheap phone cam, or cheaper xacti, or some compact camera like any of the low end digital camera that shoot video. It's the content, that rules... the meat of the post, the words coming out of your mouth that contain the meaning... not that one can see the mole on your ear. Oh! One final suggestion. I've found that it's not the resolution it's the size of the stage, the footprint on the screen. I think there's a strong preference for video about 500pixels or more wide... but it has nothing to do with resolution. It has to do with sitting back a little from the screen and relaxing the eyes. Taking the average 320x240 video and embedding it at 500 pixels wide is a great trick. The eye cannot percieve every single pixel at 15 frames a second. I think this would be the most useful think I can recommend. My approach is more of usability and accessibility. So.. perhaps that helps. Or maybe it's just rambling. :) Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 12/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Shoot using the cheapest camera you can find. 2) Embrace compression artifacts. 3) Rejoice, send me a link and spend the money you save on things that actually matter (hint: it's not a green screen). - Andreas Den 18.12.2006 kl. 01:58 skrev Joshua Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content. http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250 -- joshpaul -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
I have been using the Sanyo HD1A... The smallest video camera with HD.. To check out what it look like check my website and click on the Quicktime in High Definition.. or.. http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-OhioStateVsIllinois420.MP4 http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-OhioStateVsIllinoisPart2211.MP4 http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-jLeman193.MP4 http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-ParisHotelFountainEffielTower902.MP4 http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-VegasStrip664.MP4 http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-VegasStrip2598.MP4 I took these videos at a football game and while on my trip to vegas. I haven't done any personal videos yet, so all the HD videos I have are in this format.. Also can anyone tell me what settings they use for HD footage when they open a project in Final Cut Pro and what settings they use to keep it in HD when you export it? nick
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Yeah, Bill - a bit off-topic - but the Verizon installation tech must have said, They're rolling out FIOS TV next month, so we're all jumping around like crazy, learning... at least half a dozen times. Verizon sent me a FedEx announcement of the fiber optic rollout. They're creaming in their jeans over fiber optic delivery systems because that means TV for the computer masses who've drifted away from the boob tube. Do you think watching television on a computer will solve the masses' problem with television? Jan P.S. On topic, I'm just a bit bored with having to keep up with the latest, greatest everything everywhere in order to be taken seriously. On 12/16/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't post video online now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. I'm a little dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with broadband penetration as broad as it is now, it's still not fast enough to handle HD (for average consumer demand.) All the phone companies are working on rolling out fiber to at least within a mile of everyones front door, but at least 70% of that new capacity will be used up to provide their own proprietary television services that will compete with cable tv, leaving the other 30% (or less) of the capacity for other data service. And that can be stifled by content type if it appears that it threatens their other business (subscription television). Thus the big brew ha-ha over net neutrality last year. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only using HD camcorders. Why? For one, the image I get is much higher quality overall. My $4,000 Sony can shoot in low light, has better image stableization than the $700 Panasonic cameras I used at Microsoft, and I like the widescreen format better. The images are also better sharpness before compression and I find they compress better too. But, that's not really the reason I'm using them. I expect that sometime in the next 18 months that old-school TV distribution networks are gonna need HD content and need it bad. I'll have it. Also, look at new school distribution networks that are popping up like Tivo, Xbox, Playstation. All are looking for HD content. Plus, if you ever want to show your videos off in HD, say, in a conference setting, or at a future Vloggies, or something like that, having HD originals will make you shine in those places and if you are shooting some video for home use, some for videoblogging, and some for friends and/or company, you'll want HD, especially if you have an HD screen. My video on my Sony 60-inch is stunning. Makes me look like the Discovery Channel. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com[mailto: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:34 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet? I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [chrisbrogan.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All really good points. Well, okay. Maybe I'll switch to HD in 2007. My personal production is for small screen only, so I'm not really thinking much about it, but if I'm doing field work FOR someone else, I should have a decent rig for them. --Chris... Windows Media HD Content Showcase: http://tinyurl.com/lrsj7 System Requirements Minimum configuration for 720p 2.4 GHz processor or equivalent 384 MB of RAM Obviously, 1080p requires even more firepower. Placing HD content on the net is useless to everyone except those with the top-of-the-line computers right now. It's not even a download/bandwidth issue. Even if they download it, they can't play it. 720p = 1280w + 720h @ 60fps iPod = 320w + 180h @ 30fps other = 480w + 270h @ 15fps So... Basically, as long as the optics are good on whatever you choose to shoot with (and it's well lit), you can capture with anything that has a resolution and frame rate equal to or higher than than your output specs and get stellar video. As someone mentioned already, if you think that something you're shooting now is going to be tapped for inclusion in HD programming, then shooting and editing in HD is what you want to do. Other than that, it's not worth the time, money, drive space and potential need to upgrade hardware. Another decent option, assuming someone is using an editing system that reads timecode from the tapes and allows you to re-digitize the footage automatically, is to shoot in HD, but let the camera down-convert to SD when you load through firewire. That way, if your show gets picked up by an HD channel in the future, they're going to ask you to bring your project files and tapes to a professional for loading, editing, sound mixing, sweetening, color correction quality control. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Bill, Your comments on the phone companies PLANS are insightful and accurate and really get to the core of the whole net neutrality debate (another bizzillion channels of TV controlled by one source - or free/open network) ... but, just a couple of things I would add 1) The phone companies have been working on/promised to do this for many years and got a LOT of public support in one way or another and have not delivered, so I wouldn't say this is any done deal for the near future. Of course, they are much more motivated to do it now, since the FCC ruled that they can ignore common carrier laws a year ago - and the year moratorium is over - with the new fiber - so they will have a monopoly on ISP services on the fiber that they control. 2) Now that Democrats control congress, it's definitely far from certain that the phone companies will be able to legally allocate the band width based on where the content comes from, since the chances of net neutrality legislation passing is now very possible. ... I know what you said was not disagreeing with these things - just thought it important to clarify these points. ... Richard On 12/16/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't post video online now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. I'm a little dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with broadband penetration as broad as it is now, it's still not fast enough to handle HD (for average consumer demand.) All the phone companies are working on rolling out fiber to at least within a mile of everyones front door, but at least 70% of that new capacity will be used up to provide their own proprietary television services that will compete with cable tv, leaving the other 30% (or less) of the capacity for other data service. And that can be stifled by content type if it appears that it threatens their other business (subscription television). Thus the big brew ha-ha over net neutrality last year. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only using HD camcorders. Why? For one, the image I get is much higher quality overall. My $4,000 Sony can shoot in low light, has better image stableization than the $700 Panasonic cameras I used at Microsoft, and I like the widescreen format better. The images are also better sharpness before compression and I find they compress better too. But, that's not really the reason I'm using them. I expect that sometime in the next 18 months that old-school TV distribution networks are gonna need HD content and need it bad. I'll have it. Also, look at new school distribution networks that are popping up like Tivo, Xbox, Playstation. All are looking for HD content. Plus, if you ever want to show your videos off in HD, say, in a conference setting, or at a future Vloggies, or something like that, having HD originals will make you shine in those places and if you are shooting some video for home use, some for videoblogging, and some for friends and/or company, you'll want HD, especially if you have an HD screen. My video on my Sony 60-inch is stunning. Makes me look like the Discovery Channel. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com[mailto: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:34 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet? I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://richardhhall.org http://richardshow.com http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Robert et al., write in favor of shooting HD and I'll concur. Here's my summary of reasons for my own preference to shooting HD, even when the deliverable is 320x240 iPod or web video. 1. Shooting in an HD format like HDV is more future-proof that SD DV. If you edit using a editor that allows you to re-capture media in a different format, then it's trivial to take a show you edited in SD and recapture the pieces you need to create an HD version, for example, using the Media Manager feature in Final Cut, other editors have similar features. 2. We're evolving towards HD in terms of display devices in the hands of consumers. HD looks much better on the rapidly growing number of 1080i and 1080p large screen televisions out there, as well as the ubiquitous large LCD displays on laptops. As prices continue to drop, this will become the new standard for home entertainment. Most laptops are HD capable (1024x768 screens seem to be the new minimum with most screens larger). 3. It's not really a burden to shoot HDV and you need not edit in HDV (which requires a faster machine that DV for editing due to use of MPEG-2 format). You can simply capture SD DV through the camera, edit SD DV and deal with the fast workflow of SD DV. If you need more resolution for a special presentation or whatever, see #1 above. 4. The new generation of little HDV camcorders are almost as small as their DV counterparts. And it's more versatile to have the option of shooting DV or HDV. 5. We're evolving towards HD in production tools. Even digital still cameras with movie modes are moving towards higher resolution. 640x480 VGA is a good baseline right now, and compatible with SD DV, but the resolution is creeping up. 6. We're evolving towards HD in terms of distribution infrastructure. Internet-based television will not only soon equal the quality of terrestrial broadcast and cable HDTV, it will exceed it once Fibre becomes more common. This may not be a concern, but producers are always thinking about future-proofing media that has a long shelf- life, see #1 above. 7. Creative and political expression and the exchange of knowledge and ideas is more important that anything in points #1 through #6 above. The message will always transcend the medium and therefore points #1 though #6 are minor compared to the importance of the expressive work itself, especially in the era of participatory media, we have the option to work with a wide range of tools. David.
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Which bugs? The Indian ones or the worms? He loves to make me squirm remotely. All good points. Okay, I'll stop saying mean things about HD. And the Xacti, eh? I'll have to look again. I have had two nice Sony cameras in a row, but I'm up for investigating. --Chris...
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
I was getting quite keen on the idea of a Z1 until I saw the following, on the DV list: I wonder if any of you have heard or have experience of this problem: I work for a hire shop that has about 20 Z1s (we are mostly Betacams but these little handycams are very popular with broadcasters). We are having an increasing problem with the ingress of dust into the lens assembly, which then seems to congregate on the inside of the front element in a patch that resembles mould (that was my initial diagnosis). We never had this problem with PD150/170s (in similar environments) so I am wondering whether there is some form of 'pumping' action inherent in the zoom/focus mechanism on the Z1s, that actively 'sucks-in' dust. We have a pre-paid service support scheme with Sony but it doesn't cover accidents or 'misuse'; Sony are implying the latter but to my mind and experience this situation suggests a design problem that they ought to be prepared to cover as necessary. The whole lens assembly has to be replaced since it is apparently uneconomic to strip and clean it. Perry Mitchell joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content. http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250 -- joshpaul
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Give it up for content y'al! I certainly lust after an HD television. Our friend has a sweet 42 Panasonic and we're always in awe of the HD experience. So... what does that have to do with videoblogging? Not a whole lot today, not something most vloggers need to worry about. But tomorrow is coming quick. Rocketboom has their stuff in HD. I shoot on a Sony HC1 which is small and not very expensive. However I hardly ever edit in HD - I basically think of it as a really good SD camera with sharp detail. But I've got that footage in HD should I have an opportunity to show a video on TV, or in a theater, or online. Strangely enough, I'm considering ditching the HC1 for a Panasonic DVX. I just love the 24p look, and the gamme curves (or whatever) that just look fantastic. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Shoot using the cheapest camera you can find. 2) Embrace compression artifacts. 3) Rejoice, send me a link and spend the money you save on things that actually matter (hint: it's not a green screen). - Andreas Den 18.12.2006 kl. 01:58 skrev Joshua Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content. http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Id say it depends on their budget, how long they are expecting to go before buying another camera, and what sort of content they make. Im sure that SD and the current below-SD 320x240 type resolutions that vlogging often uses will be around for a long time. For all the poo-pooing of video on the net for being 'in a little window' in years gone by before the viral video, vlogging etc revolution, it seems clear that for short clips people are quite happy to consume the video in this way. Futureproofing side of the equation may also involve the idea that even if it takes 10 years or more before HD internet publishing for the masses becomes the norm, people may want to archive their footage of events in time and space in a nice high res format for non-internet use or so they can republish this stuff in higher quality when the time comes. Even if mot publishing in HD or even half-HD resolutions, I still think the right HD camera can give nice results with the final output, I guess rocketboom would be an example of that. Other technical reasons for recommending HD would include stuff to do with interlacing, the right cameras can use a progressive mode that is sought-after by some people who want to emulate the lookfeel of traditional film. ETchnical reasons not to go for HD include the limitation in options when it comes to editing software, the increased processor etc costs of editing/re-rendering HD, and the fact that there is more than one HD format around so its not as straightforward as well-established standard definition DV. The ability to use most HD cameras in SD mode when appropriate can cancel out these issues though. As you can tell I dont think theres a simple answer anymore, maybe it does come down more to what they are creating. I laugh at unintended boradcast TV side-effects of going HD such as viewers complaining about presenters with hairy hands. My dad finds himself watching nature documentaries on TV since he got HD, even though thats not his cup of tea, it looks so good. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [chrisbrogan.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris...
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
We switched completely to HD last year (we were doing short docs, application videos, stuff for fashion companies and AOL - lots of requirements and the clients cared less about format and more about results). We were also doing a lot of greenscreen work, and doing it on HD worked out really well - more information to work, greater depth of field, etc. We had to upgrade cameras, storage and software, but it was worth it. Now in my new company, I make HD a requirement for our new projects (inc the new videoblogs we are workin on). More flexibility in editing, lots of our work might get repurposed for CDRom or broadcast later on, there are a hundred reasons. I would recommend HD to someone who is already doing video - yes. Starting out? No - for all the reasons Steve mentions below.. On 12/16/06, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Id say it depends on their budget, how long they are expecting to go before buying another camera, and what sort of content they make. Im sure that SD and the current below-SD 320x240 type resolutions that vlogging often uses will be around for a long time. For all the poo-pooing of video on the net for being 'in a little window' in years gone by before the viral video, vlogging etc revolution, it seems clear that for short clips people are quite happy to consume the video in this way. Futureproofing side of the equation may also involve the idea that even if it takes 10 years or more before HD internet publishing for the masses becomes the norm, people may want to archive their footage of events in time and space in a nice high res format for non-internet use or so they can republish this stuff in higher quality when the time comes. Even if mot publishing in HD or even half-HD resolutions, I still think the right HD camera can give nice results with the final output, I guess rocketboom would be an example of that. Other technical reasons for recommending HD would include stuff to do with interlacing, the right cameras can use a progressive mode that is sought-after by some people who want to emulate the lookfeel of traditional film. ETchnical reasons not to go for HD include the limitation in options when it comes to editing software, the increased processor etc costs of editing/re-rendering HD, and the fact that there is more than one HD format around so its not as straightforward as well-established standard definition DV. The ability to use most HD cameras in SD mode when appropriate can cancel out these issues though. As you can tell I dont think theres a simple answer anymore, maybe it does come down more to what they are creating. I laugh at unintended boradcast TV side-effects of going HD such as viewers complaining about presenters with hairy hands. My dad finds himself watching nature documentaries on TV since he got HD, even though thats not his cup of tea, it looks so good. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, [ chrisbrogan.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris... -- Sean W. Bohan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.seanbohan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't post video online now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. I'm a little dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with broadband penetration as broad as it is now, it's still not fast enough to handle HD (for average consumer demand.) All the phone companies are working on rolling out fiber to at least within a mile of everyones front door, but at least 70% of that new capacity will be used up to provide their own proprietary television services that will compete with cable tv, leaving the other 30% (or less) of the capacity for other data service. And that can be stifled by content type if it appears that it threatens their other business (subscription television). Thus the big brew ha-ha over net neutrality last year. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only using HD camcorders. Why? For one, the image I get is much higher quality overall. My $4,000 Sony can shoot in low light, has better image stableization than the $700 Panasonic cameras I used at Microsoft, and I like the widescreen format better. The images are also better sharpness before compression and I find they compress better too. But, that's not really the reason I'm using them. I expect that sometime in the next 18 months that old-school TV distribution networks are gonna need HD content and need it bad. I'll have it. Also, look at new school distribution networks that are popping up like Tivo, Xbox, Playstation. All are looking for HD content. Plus, if you ever want to show your videos off in HD, say, in a conference setting, or at a future Vloggies, or something like that, having HD originals will make you shine in those places and if you are shooting some video for home use, some for videoblogging, and some for friends and/or company, you'll want HD, especially if you have an HD screen. My video on my Sony 60-inch is stunning. Makes me look like the Discovery Channel. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:34 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet? I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are out there in numbers, and within range? --Chris... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
All really good points. Well, okay. Maybe I'll switch to HD in 2007. My personal production is for small screen only, so I'm not really thinking much about it, but if I'm doing field work FOR someone else, I should have a decent rig for them. Robert- you're NOT the Discovery Channel? I discover something every time I watch the show. --Chris...
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
the xacti HD is pretty kick ass compared to the regular ones. (jay just got one for xmas from yours truly) but obviously you don't upload the HD version because it would be way too big. the reason to use it is for overall better quality footage that will then be shrunk down. jay shoots a lot of macro stuff (if you watch him, you know it's bugs) and the xacti c-4 just looks crappy and super pixelly that close. but the HD looks rad. and does widescreen!! but you know he's going to compress it down to a much smaller mp4. same goes with any camera if you start with good source footage it's going to compress well (ok if you know how to compress well) -ryanne On 12/16/06, [chrisbrogan.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All really good points. Well, okay. Maybe I'll switch to HD in 2007. My personal production is for small screen only, so I'm not really thinking much about it, but if I'm doing field work FOR someone else, I should have a decent rig for them. Robert- you're NOT the Discovery Channel? I discover something every time I watch the show. --Chris... -- Author of Secrets of Videoblogging http://tinyurl.com/me4vs Me http://RyanEdit.com, http://RyanIsHungry.com Educate http://FreeVlog.org, http://Node101.org Community Capitalism http://HaveMoneyWillVlog.com iChat/AIM VideoRodeo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
