Cheers. Do you know which version of rocketboom is preloaded intot he feed list of the Nokia podcasting app? I got the N95 and rocketboom was there, but I didnt check to see which version. Im guessing its one of the 3gp ones, but this particular phone can do mpeg4 and h264 so it seems like a shame to be defaulting to the lower-quality version.But I guess from Nokia's point of view they have one app that works on a range of phones with differing video capabilities, so they would pick default feeds that work on all, even if they dont make the best of something like the N95?
Anyway regardless of the N95 having a 4:3 display, I do like rocketboom in widescreen, how long ago was it now that you switched? Was a new cam the driving factor at the time? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "andrew michael baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good points which suggest that there are really 2 kinds of solution sets that have variable best case scenarios. > > Also, some users may sync their iphone for high quality files, but others may enjoy lower res files that could be d/l over a slow EDGE network. > > We already have 2 phone 3g files for low and high speed networks due to demand. > > > > Sent via CrackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:29:38 > To:[email protected] > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash > > I think people stick to 4:3 most often because they are shooting in > that aspect ratio. And whilst its true that it seems a shame to waste > the screen real-estate of th widescreen devices out there, 16:9 stuff > on a 4:3 display like the built in ipod could also be seen as wastefu > and selfish because some of that 4:3 screen is now wasted with black > bars, or cutoff part of the image and wonder if missing anything > important. > > I love 16:9 but I think 4:3 has an important place for a good while > longer, and theres plenty of footage that doesnt benefit too hugely > from being widescreen. > > Also I guess when it comes to ipod playback, 16:9 is actually going to > be a smaller res than 4:3, assuming ipod encoding takes 640 as the > maximum width, regardless of aspect ratio, and then picks the right > vertical res to match the aspect ratio? ie 16:9 footage will end up at > 640x360 as opposed to 4:3 being at 640x480? > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@: <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron > <andrew@> wrote: > > > > The only reason NOT to go with separate files, in my opinion, is > > based on ranking in the charts. For instance, if you have 2 or three > > dif quicktime feeds, it starts to divide your itunes audiences and > > then you dont get reported on any charts. There is some discovery > > loss for people who browse itunes. > > > > Im new to TVs myself, but aren't most HD TV's optimized for wide- > > screen viewing? And isn't the iphone widescreen as well? So why 3:4 > > letterbox that much of the screen real-estate? It would have to be a > > pretty selfish reason, no? > > > > And if someone is going to watch on just an iPod, Id rather spend the > > selfishness on saving the bandwidth because the increase in quality > > doesn't seem substantial enough for a small ipod screen unless an > > audience member is a rare audiophile type or collector. > > > > Everyone is different, though it seems logical and not unfamiliar to > > provide multiple feeds and file formats. Format options seem to be > > expanding, not narrowing. > > > > Drew > > > > p.s. It would be interesting to ask Scott S. about this: I recall the > > publicly distributed info about the possibility of a single cross > > platform file format (i.e. a 640x480 file for ipod, tv and "some > > other devise") that came out just before the iphone was introduced. > > Interestingly enough, I heard from David Pogue - based on his > > interview with Jobs - that Apple used tactics to fool, hide and > > divert info from their employees and their partners in order to keep > > the iPhone secret up until the last minute. Thus, the inference that > > there would be no widescreen anything was made. Kinda of a far > > fetched casual proposition as to why people are stuck with 3:4 a > > consequence but you never know :) > > >
