I have to admit, I've always struggled to do anything shorter than about 2-3
minutes. I can easily run to 10 minutes without any trouble. It will really
be a challenge if I have to do a 60, 90 or 120 second video. Whatever the
final time limit is, I will probably put a timer in the corner, counting down
to 0.
Ian B
----- Original Message -----
From: Rupert Howe
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: NaVloPoMo 2009
A compromise might be 90 seconds. Flickr's maximum video length.
Whatever that means.
On 21-Oct-09, at 9:07 PM, deirdreharvey2002 wrote:
>
> > On 21-Oct-09, at 4:22 PM, Jay dedman wrote:
> >
> > > > This was my instinct, too. Or at most two minutes. I've been
> doing
> > > > this other project with one minute videos, and it works really
> well.
> > > > You can fit quite a lot into a minute. What do other people
> think?
> > >
> > > Short is good...especially since each person needs to post their
> video
> > > within 24 hours. I assume we'll have a lot of midnight postings.
>
> Which is going to present its own challenges, given that we're
> taking inspiration from the video from the day before!
>
> Also for those of us on GMT, we'll likely be getting vids at 5am to
> inspire us for the next day's work.
>
> Although I guess we'll have cumulative inspiration from all the
> videos posted to that point.
>
> Excited.
>
> I also agree with 1-2 minute videos. 1 minute might be better, so
> the final compilation is 30 minutes rather than a full hour.
>
> > > Jay
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://ryanishungry.com
> > > http://jaydedman.com
> > > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> > > 917 371 6790
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
