Re: [videoblogging] Re: Weagel and Bluestein on Content

2005-08-24 Thread Adam Quirk
Just checking back in on this thread and finding that its subject has predictably veered away from content into technical realms. So, to get back on topic... http://www.bullemhead.com/Government/poor_bunny.html YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on th

[videoblogging] Re: Weagel and Bluestein on Content

2005-08-23 Thread Gena
Still that is a huge honking file - even for upper end DSL/Cable users. Is she or her company presenting content that is worthy of that file size? I don't object to people wanting to present their stuff in the best resolution and format. But that size excludes the very people the democracy is

[videoblogging] Re: Weagel and Bluestein on Content

2005-08-23 Thread Steve Watkins
Oops, should was supposed to be shouldnt. lol it serves me right, the democracy now video is getting on my nerves by taking ages to download. Another drawback to long video length & filesize is of course that it compounds any server speed & bandwidth cost issues. With my current connection a 1

[videoblogging] Re: Weagel and Bluestein on Content

2005-08-23 Thread Steve Watkins
Its all relative. 147MB for an hours video is really small to me, its very impressive really when we consider that less than a decade ago an hours worth of music was at least 500MB. Yes you could get the file down to 50MB, or make extreme reductions such as the video being at 1 frame per secon