On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:13 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dave you seem to have a lot of respect in this group
I doubt it, I'm pretty much a newbie. I'm just loud and say what I think, and well, some people don't like that. They don't like to hear differing opinions to what they hold to be true. >so i'll refrain from ripping you a new one <wink> and just say this. Go for your life, I can handle it, I stand by my comments. Many people take what I say personally, or mistakenly think I'm personally attacking them in some way, that's sad. My comments are meant for general discussion and food for thought. > If you bothered to read my original post before getting your pompous high and > might knickers in a twist you'd have noticed that I too share this marvelous > thing you call CHOICE. I did read it and I knew that you chose to downscale to 640x480. Nothing wrong with that, that's your choice, and I'd probably do the same thing if I deemed the quality was not acceptable at 640x480. In fact, from memory I think I did do that on my first blog with a web cam. Once again, I was speaking about low res in general, not about you or your circumstances personally. > I dont 'film' at 320x240. In fact i dont 'film' at all, and neither do you. > Get your technicalities right before you bandy silly ideas around. You shoot > video, so technically you record. Perfectly common usage, you knew what I mean, and I'm sure everyone else did too. So what's your point?, that my comments somehow have less validity because I chose to use the term "film" instead of "shoot"? I'll call it what I want, thank you very much. So my idea of advising people to at least film (sorry, shoot) and if possible upload at the best quality they reasonably can do so users have a choice is "silly"? YouTube recommend it too, so please do explain how that's silly... And as I've said I'm also an advocate of optimising your downloads for certain needs like podcasting etc. I do it myself. But I don't *only* upload at 320x240, because I know people like to view my blog in many different ways, and my blog is mostly a talking head that can be viewed adequately at 320x240. So I give them a choice and upload the best material I have available. > And I RECORD my video at 640x480. I CHOOSE to downscale to 320x240 because my > expert eye has determined that the image looks better that way. It benefits > from the reduced noise and softened image. Sure, you'll get no argument from me. > My full frame 480p image is captured on a $100 flip, whereas your image is > captured on a $400 HD cam. If i were shooting content that I thought worthy > of such a camera I would certainly invest in one. I own a professional miniDV > camera that captures quite a nice full frame image, but I dont quite fancy > lugging that around with me to the playground to shoot my son, which is what > the majority of my videoblogging contains. Once again you'll get argument from me, my comments were more directed in general at those who use cameras and system capable of higher res, but chose to use to lower resolution for whatever reason. Would you still downscale to 320x240 if your cam was capable of good quality 640x480? I doubt it, I bet you'd be chuffed with your 640x480 image quality and want to show it to the world. > Also there is the question of bandwidth and I've had this argument with > several people, and I'm often in the minority. But i believe my position so I > stand by it. Bandwidth is not free, contrary to popular opinion. Someone > somewhere is paying for it. We wil all pay for it if the ISPs want to > throttle their networks thanks to every tom dick and harry publishing HD > video of their son on a swing, thus choking up the networks with unnecessary > bits. your content may very well warrant the higher quality. Thats your > choice. Miine does not. Thats my choice. Once again, systems like YouTube are capable of displaying and using whatever bandwidth the user desires. So in these cases it's better to upload in the best quality you can so the user can decide what they want. And that's not just my personal opinion, remember, YouTube recommend and encourage everyone to upload their *best quality* source material, (at least 640x480 recommended). They wouldn't do they if they didn't have the storage and processing space to do it. And as I've said, they offer the user a choice of download sizes and bandwidths, which defaults to the smallest 320p, so you can't argue it's a download bandwidth issue here. > Its horses for courses mate. Always. > Post a link to your site. I'd like to see what you are publishing It's not for a general audience, but here you go: www.eevblog.com Yours? Regards Dave.
