[videoblogging] Re: Timelapse software?
I like my Xacti! I expect you are looking for a Windows solution? I would use MP4Cam2Avi to make mp4 into avi. Then I'd import into Virtualdub and fiddle with the framerate settings. I have not needed to do this, but I'm confident it will work. You can export frames as well as AVI files. Good luck! --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to take a 12 hour video with my Xacti and then run it through a utility that will save every Nth frame to a new video file. Anyone know of any such software? I see Windv does it... but as it captures from a MiniDV device. I want to use a utility on digital media. Thanks, Mike http://vlog.MikeMoon.net
Re: [videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
I actually ended up stopping by this site a few days ago. I think it was mentioned in some article i read. Funny thing is, they have the exact same tagline as one of the sites I worked on. But yeah, they are giving you attribution but they are definately re-hosting a newly transcoded flv file: http://www.pyro.tv/media/4/sharedmedia/6/40/10/5075_416572.mp4.flv Sull On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm referring them to the vertigo aggregator best practices http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ though i'm not seeing on there a specific clause about transcoding and re-hosting other than this phrase: Aggregators should always conduct video playback in the video's original player, rather than the aggregator's player. i don't think that's specific enough.. that says original player, not original format. technically would that be considered the same thing? because quicktime just has one player flash could possibly have different players so i'm a little confused on that wording. -ry On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]ryanne.hodson%40gmail.com wrote: yep. another one http://www.pyro.tv/ transcoding your stuff to flash (heck, it even looks ok) but then re-hosting. and i so sick and tired that i'll just let this one slide? um no. that ain't cool. SIGH -ryanne -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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 -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
They seem to be giving attribution and providing direct download links to the original file ... downloads will hit blip for stats and links will hit feedburner and what not ... but the transcoding still bugs me. I wonder why these sites are so determined to eat up their own hosting/bandwidth space when they needn't? They seem to have come close at this site and say on their publishers page: Protecting Your Stuff We are creative types ourselves and understand that hollow and angry feeling when someone hijacks your stuff. So we provide very visible attribution of your content, which we copy completely intact with all beauty you intended. And if you don't want your videos on Pyro.TV, we promise to take it down right away Sounds like they may be the sort who will be willing to go that last mile and stop the copy portion of their plan and just use the content we're already distributing in the feed. ... here's hoping. :-) - Dave On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm referring them to the vertigo aggregator best practices http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ though i'm not seeing on there a specific clause about transcoding and re-hosting other than this phrase: Aggregators should always conduct video playback in the video's original player, rather than the aggregator's player. i don't think that's specific enough.. that says original player, not original format. technically would that be considered the same thing? because quicktime just has one player flash could possibly have different players so i'm a little confused on that wording. -ry On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yep. another one http://www.pyro.tv/ transcoding your stuff to flash (heck, it even looks ok) but then re-hosting. and i so sick and tired that i'll just let this one slide? um no. that ain't cool. SIGH -ryanne -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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 -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
I think its in part because they want to assure all videos on their site are flash in order to avoid playback issues with users... and also it provides them with some deeper viewing stats as well. They are using on2 flix http://on2.com/technology/flix-features/ They are using their bandwidth. Both cost money. However The transcoding software is just good tool to have under the hood for a startup in the video space. So not a waste of money there. The bandwidth could also be insignificant until they become BIG. I think it comes back to stats and it just works perspective. Keep in mind, few services openly offer flv format like blip does. If more did so, then we would probably see less rehosting of the flash format. Sull On 4/14/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They seem to be giving attribution and providing direct download links to the original file ... downloads will hit blip for stats and links will hit feedburner and what not ... but the transcoding still bugs me. I wonder why these sites are so determined to eat up their own hosting/bandwidth space when they needn't? They seem to have come close at this site and say on their publishers page: Protecting Your Stuff We are creative types ourselves and understand that hollow and angry feeling when someone hijacks your stuff. So we provide very visible attribution of your content, which we copy completely intact with all beauty you intended. And if you don't want your videos on Pyro.TV, we promise to take it down right away Sounds like they may be the sort who will be willing to go that last mile and stop the copy portion of their plan and just use the content we're already distributing in the feed. ... here's hoping. :-) - Dave On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]ryanne.hodson%40gmail.com wrote: i'm referring them to the vertigo aggregator best practices http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ though i'm not seeing on there a specific clause about transcoding and re-hosting other than this phrase: Aggregators should always conduct video playback in the video's original player, rather than the aggregator's player. i don't think that's specific enough.. that says original player, not original format. technically would that be considered the same thing? because quicktime just has one player flash could possibly have different players so i'm a little confused on that wording. -ry On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]ryanne.hodson%40gmail.com wrote: yep. another one http://www.pyro.tv/ transcoding your stuff to flash (heck, it even looks ok) but then re-hosting. and i so sick and tired that i'll just let this one slide? um no. that ain't cool. SIGH -ryanne -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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 -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always be able find a way to do that. I don't respect them, but I accept them. Like I accept the existence of bacteria in my intestine. I know it's living in there, serving some kind of purpose, I just usually avoid thinking about it. If they become larger, like a tapeworm say, and start causing health problems, like stealing viewership and therefore ad revenue, then maybe it's time to call in the Quinacrine, or a lawyer. Drunken metaphoring, sorry if none of that made sense. -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Saturday April 14th 2007 FlashMeeting
This Saturday, 4/14/07, FlashMeeting is about to happen. The time for entry is 10am - noon PST USA, 1pm - 3pm EST USA, 17:00-19:00 GMT. Enter through this link: http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/f27ca7-8054 You may also check the FlashMeeting page at http://flashmeeting.cirne.com for future and past Videoblogging FlashMeetings at: http://flashmeeting.cirne.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Let me know if there's any topics you'd like to discuss on Saturday. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com
Re: [videoblogging] pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
Blip's ads do not play through. That's a factor... Jan On 4/14/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always be able find a way to do that. I don't respect them, but I accept them. Like I accept the existence of bacteria in my intestine. I know it's living in there, serving some kind of purpose, I just usually avoid thinking about it. If they become larger, like a tapeworm say, and start causing health problems, like stealing viewership and therefore ad revenue, then maybe it's time to call in the Quinacrine, or a lawyer. Drunken metaphoring, sorry if none of that made sense. -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
when posting a podcast wich format should I use? .swf quicktime ipod converted file apple tv format? other? How can I convert a swf file to these formats? thanks
Re: [videoblogging] pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/03/mike-hudacks-rules-for- video-sharing.html or http://tinyurl.com/2pvyg9 And posted their initial response: Update from Pyro.tv via Roxanne: I understand the importance of tracking views and data. We will be soon releasing a tool for publishers like yourself to get direct visibility to your feed and titles performance through our service. I will let you know when it is available. In the meantime, I'd be happy to pass along any data we had already gathered (granted we have only been public for a few days). I have passed your feedback to our product group and will be implementing changes as soon as we can. If you visit the site you should see that the pyro.tv watermark in the player has already been removed. I am also recommending a clear link in the player area titled Visit this publisher's website or something similar, among other changes to provide clear information about the content owner and rights. Any additional feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: Hey, A few of us contacted them last month and since then they have removed the branding from the video and added a link back to the website. They still don't link to the permalink of the post and they don't display the CC license that's embedded in my RSS feed. It's right in my feed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Blip's ads do not play through. That's a factor... Jan On 4/14/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always be able find a way to do that. I don't respect them, but I accept them. Like I accept the existence of bacteria in my intestine. I know it's living in there, serving some kind of purpose, I just usually avoid thinking about it. If they become larger, like a tapeworm say, and start causing health problems, like stealing viewership and therefore ad revenue, then maybe it's time to call in the Quinacrine, or a lawyer. Drunken metaphoring, sorry if none of that made sense. -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
[videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
Speaking of settings, Does anyone know of a program (on PC) that allows bitrate manipulation of h.264 codec MP4s in 640x480? I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base. Rev. Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time to share... For those interested parties... you don't have to export from Movie to Apple TV. With these settings, you can get a file %50 of the size you would get with the default settings. Just click on Movie to QuickTime Movie in QuickTime Pro and enter the settings in this screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseymckinnon/433249448/ If you're using 4:3 instead of 16:9, put the dimensions as 640x480 instead of 640x360. Lots of love, Rudy and Casey --- http://galacticast.com
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
You have to think about the people who are coming to your site. The majority will be Windows users. However, you will also have Mac and Linux users as well. You also have to decide on the video quality and portability issues, i.e. do you want folks to download/share. Not all of your viewers will be tech savvy. You want to provide the simplest method for viewing the video that is balanced by your need to create a decent video quality. Converting to Flash seems like a no brainier except that not everyone can view a .flv file or can handle the file size. For me, there is also a small question of video quality. Most browsers now can handle .swf files. You certainly can convert .wmv and .mov movies into a .swf file. Inexpensively there is a program called SwishVideo http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=productsproduct=video that can help you make conversion. For some vloggers they make the decision to only provide QuickTime format, either .mov or iPod version. Others don't want to exclude potential viewers. They provide a .wmv and a .mov format or a .wmv/iPod version mix. I would not consider an .avi which is an older codec, lesser quality and is a huge honking sized file. The Apple TV format is so new that there is no bases of users. You can be one of the first but how many people have an Apple TV? Ah, the choices... Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? .swf quicktime ipod converted file apple tv format? other? How can I convert a swf file to these formats? thanks
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
Hmm, I seem to be able to do it ok in QT Pro on my PC. (There is a settings button where you can set all the h.264 settings, but you have to then click an entirely different size button to set the size). I'll try to create a video w/ these settings on my PC today and out it online somewhere. On 4/14/07, Chumley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of settings, Does anyone know of a program (on PC) that allows bitrate manipulation of h.264 codec MP4s in 640x480? I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base. Rev. Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time to share... For those interested parties... you don't have to export from Movie to Apple TV. With these settings, you can get a file %50 of the size you would get with the default settings. Just click on Movie to QuickTime Movie in QuickTime Pro and enter the settings in this screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseymckinnon/433249448/ If you're using 4:3 instead of 16:9, put the dimensions as 640x480 instead of 640x360. Lots of love, Rudy and Casey --- http://galacticast.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
i also got a response from them saying what sull had said that they transcode so it's a more reliable playback experience... Ryanne - I'll have your channel removed as soon as possible. Just an FYI, I understand that transcoding and hosting is an issue, but we decided to go ahead with it because it significantly improves the viewing experience in a web environment. We track all viewing data (not just downloads) and will be making it available to all publishers in the next week. On 4/14/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/03/mike-hudacks-rules-for- video-sharing.html or http://tinyurl.com/2pvyg9 And posted their initial response: Update from Pyro.tv via Roxanne: I understand the importance of tracking views and data. We will be soon releasing a tool for publishers like yourself to get direct visibility to your feed and titles performance through our service. I will let you know when it is available. In the meantime, I'd be happy to pass along any data we had already gathered (granted we have only been public for a few days). I have passed your feedback to our product group and will be implementing changes as soon as we can. If you visit the site you should see that the pyro.tv watermark in the player has already been removed. I am also recommending a clear link in the player area titled Visit this publisher's website or something similar, among other changes to provide clear information about the content owner and rights. Any additional feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: Hey, A few of us contacted them last month and since then they have removed the branding from the video and added a link back to the website. They still don't link to the permalink of the post and they don't display the CC license that's embedded in my RSS feed. It's right in my feed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Blip's ads do not play through. That's a factor... Jan On 4/14/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED]quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com wrote: In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always be able find a way to do that. I don't respect them, but I accept them. Like I accept the existence of bacteria in my intestine. I know it's living in there, serving some kind of purpose, I just usually avoid thinking about it. If they become larger, like a tapeworm say, and start causing health problems, like stealing viewership and therefore ad revenue, then maybe it's time to call in the Quinacrine, or a lawyer. Drunken metaphoring, sorry if none of that made sense. -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
Den 14.04.2007 kl. 16:40 skrev Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would not consider an .avi which is an older codec, lesser quality and is a huge honking sized file. The Apple TV format is so new that there is no bases of users. You can be one of the first but how many people have an Apple TV? AVI is a container format (like MOV) so it makes no sense to talk about file size and quality in regards to AVI. What matters is which video codec you use inside your AVI wrapper. Just as you can encode your .mov in h.263 or h.264 you can use different codecs inside your AVI wrapper (DivX for example). The AVI container has next to no impact on the file size. AppleTV can play your h.264 videos (with some limitations, but if you're encoding at more than the 5 mbps that is the AppleTV's limit you shouldn't be videoblogging that video anyway). -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
thank you, If I chose to go with .swf would that work for Apple TV, ipod and most everything necessary for podcast? Otherwise, how can I convert a .swf to quicktime? Daryl --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have to think about the people who are coming to your site. The majority will be Windows users. However, you will also have Mac and Linux users as well. You also have to decide on the video quality and portability issues, i.e. do you want folks to download/share. Not all of your viewers will be tech savvy. You want to provide the simplest method for viewing the video that is balanced by your need to create a decent video quality. Converting to Flash seems like a no brainier except that not everyone can view a .flv file or can handle the file size. For me, there is also a small question of video quality. Most browsers now can handle .swf files. You certainly can convert .wmv and .mov movies into a .swf file. Inexpensively there is a program called SwishVideo http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=productsproduct=video that can help you make conversion. For some vloggers they make the decision to only provide QuickTime format, either .mov or iPod version. Others don't want to exclude potential viewers. They provide a .wmv and a .mov format or a .wmv/iPod version mix. I would not consider an .avi which is an older codec, lesser quality and is a huge honking sized file. The Apple TV format is so new that there is no bases of users. You can be one of the first but how many people have an Apple TV? Ah, the choices... Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? .swf quicktime ipod converted file apple tv format? other? How can I convert a swf file to these formats? thanks
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
.swf files are actually flash video or flash animation files, exported with player code so that it is viewable in the browser using Flash Player. .swf also allows for some interactivity, with clickable hyperlinks, jumping around in the video or animation, etc. As an ouput for video I dislike it immensely, not because of quality isues (it's the same as .flv, because the video portion of an swf is really an flv) but because it means that it is very hard to do anything else with it except play it on a web page. And once it's swf, good luck trying to get it into another format. Most of the time you can extract video, but not the audio. I know there is software that can extract YouTube videos, but that's because the swf is actually pulling in flv video from another URL, and the software just sniffs the data packets to find the original source, and gets it from there (or so I'm told). So think of swf as an executable program that needs nothing but a flash-enabled browser to work. If file portability/downloadability is what you need, steer clear of swf. Best, Carter Harkins http://CrowdAbout.us --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thank you, If I chose to go with .swf would that work for Apple TV, ipod and most everything necessary for podcast? Otherwise, how can I convert a .swf to quicktime? Daryl --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gena compumavengal@ wrote: You have to think about the people who are coming to your site. The majority will be Windows users. However, you will also have Mac and Linux users as well. You also have to decide on the video quality and portability issues, i.e. do you want folks to download/share. Not all of your viewers will be tech savvy. You want to provide the simplest method for viewing the video that is balanced by your need to create a decent video quality. Converting to Flash seems like a no brainier except that not everyone can view a .flv file or can handle the file size. For me, there is also a small question of video quality. Most browsers now can handle .swf files. You certainly can convert .wmv and .mov movies into a .swf file. Inexpensively there is a program called SwishVideo http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=productsproduct=video that can help you make conversion. For some vloggers they make the decision to only provide QuickTime format, either .mov or iPod version. Others don't want to exclude potential viewers. They provide a .wmv and a .mov format or a .wmv/iPod version mix. I would not consider an .avi which is an older codec, lesser quality and is a huge honking sized file. The Apple TV format is so new that there is no bases of users. You can be one of the first but how many people have an Apple TV? Ah, the choices... Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? .swf quicktime ipod converted file apple tv format? other? How can I convert a swf file to these formats? thanks
[videoblogging] Re: MasamiBillShow
MasamiBillShow has been translated into Japanese and Haitian Creole: http://dotsub.com/films/masamibillshow001/index.php Join dotsub.com if you'd like to add other languages. -- Bill C. http://BillCammack.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MasamiBillShow http://billcammack.com/category/masamibillshow/ Video Blog with captions by http://dotSUB.com -- Bill C.
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
well, you have hit on a couple of my concerns. When I export out of flash as a quicktime movie I loose the sound track of the imported and embeded quicktime movie. Any ideas why this is happening? Some may not know this, but you can publish quicktime, but the export quicktime video is a different fuction, seems like better quality. Both give you a .mov So how can i get my quicktime movie out of flash with the sound track? --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], caroosky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .swf files are actually flash video or flash animation files, exported with player code so that it is viewable in the browser using Flash Player. .swf also allows for some interactivity, with clickable hyperlinks, jumping around in the video or animation, etc. As an ouput for video I dislike it immensely, not because of quality isues (it's the same as .flv, because the video portion of an swf is really an flv) but because it means that it is very hard to do anything else with it except play it on a web page. And once it's swf, good luck trying to get it into another format. Most of the time you can extract video, but not the audio. I know there is software that can extract YouTube videos, but that's because the swf is actually pulling in flv video from another URL, and the software just sniffs the data packets to find the original source, and gets it from there (or so I'm told). So think of swf as an executable program that needs nothing but a flash-enabled browser to work. If file portability/downloadability is what you need, steer clear of swf. Best, Carter Harkins http://CrowdAbout.us --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: thank you, If I chose to go with .swf would that work for Apple TV, ipod and most everything necessary for podcast? Otherwise, how can I convert a .swf to quicktime? Daryl --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gena compumavengal@ wrote: You have to think about the people who are coming to your site. The majority will be Windows users. However, you will also have Mac and Linux users as well. You also have to decide on the video quality and portability issues, i.e. do you want folks to download/share. Not all of your viewers will be tech savvy. You want to provide the simplest method for viewing the video that is balanced by your need to create a decent video quality. Converting to Flash seems like a no brainier except that not everyone can view a .flv file or can handle the file size. For me, there is also a small question of video quality. Most browsers now can handle .swf files. You certainly can convert .wmv and .mov movies into a .swf file. Inexpensively there is a program called SwishVideo http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=productsproduct=video that can help you make conversion. For some vloggers they make the decision to only provide QuickTime format, either .mov or iPod version. Others don't want to exclude potential viewers. They provide a .wmv and a .mov format or a .wmv/iPod version mix. I would not consider an .avi which is an older codec, lesser quality and is a huge honking sized file. The Apple TV format is so new that there is no bases of users. You can be one of the first but how many people have an Apple TV? Ah, the choices... Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? .swf quicktime ipod converted file apple tv format? other? How can I convert a swf file to these formats? thanks
[videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
Long live blip.tv. I agree, their strategy of offering the flv permalink sets them apart in a world of vieo hosting options. And with that single link, we videobloggers have a whole host of other fun things we can do with our content. (This has been an unpaid and sincerely honest endorsement.) Best, Carter Harkins http://CrowdAbout.us --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think its in part because they want to assure all videos on their site are flash in order to avoid playback issues with users... and also it provides them with some deeper viewing stats as well. They are using on2 flix http://on2.com/technology/flix-features/ They are using their bandwidth. Both cost money. However The transcoding software is just good tool to have under the hood for a startup in the video space. So not a waste of money there. The bandwidth could also be insignificant until they become BIG. I think it comes back to stats and it just works perspective. Keep in mind, few services openly offer flv format like blip does. If more did so, then we would probably see less rehosting of the flash format. Sull On 4/14/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They seem to be giving attribution and providing direct download links to the original file ... downloads will hit blip for stats and links will hit feedburner and what not ... but the transcoding still bugs me. I wonder why these sites are so determined to eat up their own hosting/bandwidth space when they needn't? They seem to have come close at this site and say on their publishers page: Protecting Your Stuff We are creative types ourselves and understand that hollow and angry feeling when someone hijacks your stuff. So we provide very visible attribution of your content, which we copy completely intact with all beauty you intended. And if you don't want your videos on Pyro.TV, we promise to take it down right away Sounds like they may be the sort who will be willing to go that last mile and stop the copy portion of their plan and just use the content we're already distributing in the feed. ... here's hoping. :-) - Dave On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]ryanne.hodson%40gmail.com wrote: i'm referring them to the vertigo aggregator best practices http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ though i'm not seeing on there a specific clause about transcoding and re-hosting other than this phrase: Aggregators should always conduct video playback in the video's original player, rather than the aggregator's player. i don't think that's specific enough.. that says original player, not original format. technically would that be considered the same thing? because quicktime just has one player flash could possibly have different players so i'm a little confused on that wording. -ry On 4/14/07, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]ryanne.hodson%40gmail.com wrote: yep. another one http://www.pyro.tv/ transcoding your stuff to flash (heck, it even looks ok) but then re-hosting. and i so sick and tired that i'll just let this one slide? um no. that ain't cool. SIGH -ryanne -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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 -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
Then what about magnify.net? I haven't looked closely at how they aggregate videos...can anyone enlighten me? Carter CrowdAbout.us --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/03/mike-hudacks-rules-for- video-sharing.html or http://tinyurl.com/2pvyg9 And posted their initial response: Update from Pyro.tv via Roxanne: I understand the importance of tracking views and data. We will be soon releasing a tool for publishers like yourself to get direct visibility to your feed and titles performance through our service. I will let you know when it is available. In the meantime, I'd be happy to pass along any data we had already gathered (granted we have only been public for a few days). I have passed your feedback to our product group and will be implementing changes as soon as we can. If you visit the site you should see that the pyro.tv watermark in the player has already been removed. I am also recommending a clear link in the player area titled Visit this publisher's website or something similar, among other changes to provide clear information about the content owner and rights. Any additional feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: Hey, A few of us contacted them last month and since then they have removed the branding from the video and added a link back to the website. They still don't link to the permalink of the post and they don't display the CC license that's embedded in my RSS feed. It's right in my feed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Blip's ads do not play through. That's a factor... Jan On 4/14/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always be able find a way to do that. I don't respect them, but I accept them. Like I accept the existence of bacteria in my intestine. I know it's living in there, serving some kind of purpose, I just usually avoid thinking about it. If they become larger, like a tapeworm say, and start causing health problems, like stealing viewership and therefore ad revenue, then maybe it's time to call in the Quinacrine, or a lawyer. Drunken metaphoring, sorry if none of that made sense. -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
Re: [videoblogging] imovie and flash - where did sound track go?
Daryl Just checking in for a second and no chance to test, but see: http://tinyurl.com/2nqbj3 Which is the Flash 8 Documentation file: Using Flash Publishing Publishing Flash documents Specifying publish settings for QuickTime videos Particularly this paragraph: Select Streaming Sound to have Flash export all the streaming audio in the Flash SWF file to a QuickTime sound track, recompressing the audio using the standard QuickTime audio settings. To change these options, click Audio Settings; for more information, see your QuickTime documentation. Hope this helps Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 13 Apr 2007, at 15:42, Daryl Urig wrote: began my first movie. exported imovie to quicktime. converted quicktime to flv n flash 8 pro. embeded flv into flash 8 set frame rate at 30 fps flash, movie and sound track all sync, looks good, sounds good. .swf works great from flash but when I export quicktime video from export menue in flash, I loose the sound track. How do I get sound track to work? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
We had our stuff removed last month and we're working through partners to get them to realize that reencoding is not cool. -K --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i also got a response from them saying what sull had said that they transcode so it's a more reliable playback experience... Ryanne - I'll have your channel removed as soon as possible. Just an FYI, I understand that transcoding and hosting is an issue, but we decided to go ahead with it because it significantly improves the viewing experience in a web environment. We track all viewing data (not just downloads) and will be making it available to all publishers in the next week. On 4/14/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/03/mike-hudacks-rules-for- video-sharing.html or http://tinyurl.com/2pvyg9 And posted their initial response: Update from Pyro.tv via Roxanne: I understand the importance of tracking views and data. We will be soon releasing a tool for publishers like yourself to get direct visibility to your feed and titles performance through our service. I will let you know when it is available. In the meantime, I'd be happy to pass along any data we had already gathered (granted we have only been public for a few days). I have passed your feedback to our product group and will be implementing changes as soon as we can. If you visit the site you should see that the pyro.tv watermark in the player has already been removed. I am also recommending a clear link in the player area titled Visit this publisher's website or something similar, among other changes to provide clear information about the content owner and rights. Any additional feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: Hey, A few of us contacted them last month and since then they have removed the branding from the video and added a link back to the website. They still don't link to the permalink of the post and they don't display the CC license that's embedded in my RSS feed. It's right in my feed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Blip's ads do not play through. That's a factor... Jan On 4/14/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED]quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com wrote: In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always be able find a way to do that. I don't respect them, but I accept them. Like I accept the existence of bacteria in my intestine. I know it's living in there, serving some kind of purpose, I just usually avoid thinking about it. If they become larger, like a tapeworm say, and start causing health problems, like stealing viewership and therefore ad revenue, then maybe it's time to call in the Quinacrine, or a lawyer. Drunken metaphoring, sorry if none of that made sense. -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- Pixelodeon-June 9th 10th American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen http://pixelodeonfest.com/ -- 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]
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
I had so many issues with swf, I quit using them altogether, so I'm pulling this out of ancient history... Quicktime and swf are intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. Someone, please feel free to correct me, because I'm sure I'm not getting this completely accurate here. But in any case, getting the audio out is an issue. swf treats the video, audio and other interactive elements as separate layers when it is created. Recombining them seems to be the part it can't do when trying to re-encode as another format. Hopefully my mangling of the technicalities of this will bait someone into responding with better information... Carter http://crowdabout.us --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, you have hit on a couple of my concerns. When I export out of flash as a quicktime movie I loose the sound track of the imported and embeded quicktime movie. Any ideas why this is happening? Some may not know this, but you can publish quicktime, but the export quicktime video is a different fuction, seems like better quality. Both give you a .mov So how can i get my quicktime movie out of flash with the sound track? --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], caroosky carter@ wrote: .swf files are actually flash video or flash animation files, exported with player code so that it is viewable in the browser using Flash Player. .swf also allows for some interactivity, with clickable hyperlinks, jumping around in the video or animation, etc. As an ouput for video I dislike it immensely, not because of quality isues (it's the same as .flv, because the video portion of an swf is really an flv) but because it means that it is very hard to do anything else with it except play it on a web page. And once it's swf, good luck trying to get it into another format. Most of the time you can extract video, but not the audio. I know there is software that can extract YouTube videos, but that's because the swf is actually pulling in flv video from another URL, and the software just sniffs the data packets to find the original source, and gets it from there (or so I'm told). So think of swf as an executable program that needs nothing but a flash-enabled browser to work. If file portability/downloadability is what you need, steer clear of swf. Best, Carter Harkins http://CrowdAbout.us --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: thank you, If I chose to go with .swf would that work for Apple TV, ipod and most everything necessary for podcast? Otherwise, how can I convert a .swf to quicktime? Daryl --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gena compumavengal@ wrote: You have to think about the people who are coming to your site. The majority will be Windows users. However, you will also have Mac and Linux users as well. You also have to decide on the video quality and portability issues, i.e. do you want folks to download/share. Not all of your viewers will be tech savvy. You want to provide the simplest method for viewing the video that is balanced by your need to create a decent video quality. Converting to Flash seems like a no brainier except that not everyone can view a .flv file or can handle the file size. For me, there is also a small question of video quality. Most browsers now can handle .swf files. You certainly can convert .wmv and .mov movies into a .swf file. Inexpensively there is a program called SwishVideo http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=productsproduct=video that can help you make conversion. For some vloggers they make the decision to only provide QuickTime format, either .mov or iPod version. Others don't want to exclude potential viewers. They provide a .wmv and a .mov format or a .wmv/iPod version mix. I would not consider an .avi which is an older codec, lesser quality and is a huge honking sized file. The Apple TV format is so new that there is no bases of users. You can be one of the first but how many people have an Apple TV? Ah, the choices... Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote: when posting a podcast wich format should I use? .swf quicktime ipod converted file apple tv format? other? How can I convert a swf file to these formats? thanks
[videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
Hey David, Thanks for looking into that, oh but let me clarify. I need the resulting MP4 with h.264 codec to be 640x480 and iPod compatable. I could of course use the m4v export to ipod option but my show is very very long (usually 1 hour 30 mins)and the straight export make the file size WAY to huge. Thus needing to manipulate the bitrate. Rev. Chumley --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I seem to be able to do it ok in QT Pro on my PC. (There is a settings button where you can set all the h.264 settings, but you have to then click an entirely different size button to set the size). I'll try to create a video w/ these settings on my PC today and out it online somewhere. On 4/14/07, Chumley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of settings, Does anyone know of a program (on PC) that allows bitrate manipulation of h.264 codec MP4s in 640x480? I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base. Rev. Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon caseymckinnon@ wrote: Time to share... For those interested parties... you don't have to export from Movie to Apple TV. With these settings, you can get a file %50 of the size you would get with the default settings. Just click on Movie to QuickTime Movie in QuickTime Pro and enter the settings in this screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseymckinnon/433249448/ If you're using 4:3 instead of 16:9, put the dimensions as 640x480 instead of 640x360. Lots of love, Rudy and Casey --- http://galacticast.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky [EMAIL PROTECTED]: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
I took the original quicktime movie i had, and stripped out the sound track using Sound Studio, a nice cheap sound editing program. Then I imported the seperate sound track into flash and exported it is a QuickTime Video. That worked. The quicktime now has he audio. With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky [EMAIL PROTECTED]: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] vlog flash meeting in progress
join us!
[videoblogging] Re: when posting a podcast wich format should I use?
I took the original quicktime movie i had, and stripped out the sound track using Sound Studio, a nice cheap sound editing program. Then I imported the seperate sound track into flash and exported it is a QuickTime Video. That worked. The quicktime now has he audio. With the sound track, a one minute movie 133 megs. I am using 16 bit color 44 khz 16 bit sterio. It is a 640 wide so it can be used with apple tv. Is this a little large? What quality should I use on sound track? What quality should I use on quicktime movie? How small should this file size be? thanks in advance. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 14.04.2007 kl. 19:06 skrev caroosky [EMAIL PROTECTED]: intermingled somehow. I think quicktime uses an swf in the quicktime wrapper when making things clickable in the video. Or something. No. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
hmm Im not sure I understand. Do you not see the limit bitrate option in the h.264 settings? Or are you saying that regarless of the bitrate settings the standard h.264 codec in windows QTPro cant be ipod compatabe? I've not done alot of testing ... just been clicking around in the options screen. I'll see if I can get an h.264 640x480 on my ipod this weekend (from windows QTpro). On 4/14/07, Chumley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey David, Thanks for looking into that, oh but let me clarify. I need the resulting MP4 with h.264 codec to be 640x480 and iPod compatable. I could of course use the m4v export to ipod option but my show is very very long (usually 1 hour 30 mins)and the straight export make the file size WAY to huge. Thus needing to manipulate the bitrate. Rev. Chumley --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I seem to be able to do it ok in QT Pro on my PC. (There is a settings button where you can set all the h.264 settings, but you have to then click an entirely different size button to set the size). I'll try to create a video w/ these settings on my PC today and out it online somewhere. On 4/14/07, Chumley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of settings, Does anyone know of a program (on PC) that allows bitrate manipulation of h.264 codec MP4s in 640x480? I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base. Rev. Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon caseymckinnon@ wrote: Time to share... For those interested parties... you don't have to export from Movie to Apple TV. With these settings, you can get a file %50 of the size you would get with the default settings. Just click on Movie to QuickTime Movie in QuickTime Pro and enter the settings in this screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseymckinnon/433249448/ If you're using 4:3 instead of 16:9, put the dimensions as 640x480 instead of 640x360. Lots of love, Rudy and Casey --- http://galacticast.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
[videoblogging] This Monday, San Francisco Concert to Celebrate my Release from Jail
Hey Everyone, just wanted to let all you bay area people know about the concert we'll be having this Monday night at the Brava Theatre to celebrate my release. David Rovics will be performing as will Emcee Lynx w/ Beltaines Fire, and also the Molotov Mouths. For more information, e-mail me or see the following URLS... http://upcoming.org/event/176051/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/456203770/ Hope to see some of you there. Josh
[videoblogging] Lifecasting
Now Scoble: http://www.ustream.tv/watch/channel/n6m2nBTlCbmJHPL0,I51JQ
[videoblogging] NOOOOOOO!!!!
In Canada, the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC (in the US), so this is TERRIBLE NEWS: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html The CRTC are the creators of a crappy thing called CanCon (Canadian Content) which forces broadcasters to play a large percentage of Canadian Content, therefore making our television SUCK. Keep the Internet free!!! Casey --- http://galacticast.com
[videoblogging] Re: Vonnegut's Advice To Videomakers
http://videopancakes.blogspot.com/2007/04/awful-things.html http://videopancakes.blogspot.com/2007/04/awful-things.html --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was really advice to Short Story authors, but i think it also applies to thos of us that are striving to create short form videos. From: http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1107367.html Some writing advice by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on the subject of short stories, from Bagombo Snuff Box: 1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted. 2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for. 3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water. 4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action. 5. Start as close to the end as possible. 6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them -- in order that the reader may see what they are made of. 7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia. 8. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: NOOOOOOO!!!!
Its good to be concerned about this stuff, thanks for posting about it. Luckily I dont think its quite as bad as it sounds. Ive read the following very boring document to get some detail on what they might be looking at exactly: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Hearings/2007/n2007-5.htm You are quite correct that one of their aims is making sure Candaians are exposed to lots of stuff made in Canada, I imagine for both financial and 'sense of belonging to this nation' reasons. Sounds like some other political aims such as promoting diversity or voices, minority cultures, is also present. This stuff is quite similar to EU regulation in many ways. And now both are looking at the internet again and wondering if there is a point to reglating it. In the past theyve been a bit cautious, partly because they dont want to strange their own homegrown company ventures into this area, and leave their regions at a commercial disadvantage. A lot fo the regulation relates to ownership, trying to make sure that one geographic area isnt dominated by media owned by one entity. This is a long battle that never really ends, mass media has powerful affect on people so there is always political interest. But the way the internet works makes some of this stuff seem largely irrelevant or beyond control. The same applies to the stuff about making sure a pertain percentage of programming is homegrown. This stuff is stronger in some countries than others, and is partly a ressonse to (mostly US) foreign media imports, and concerns this causes about both the domestic media industry and the weakening of homeland cultural identity. But on the net people can choose what they want from a vast range of possibilities, its not like there is a limited number of channels. All they can do is try to make sure there are some Canadian companies in the 'new media' industry, and if there were Canadian based 'internet tv guides' they could insist that the sites promote a certain amount of Canadian shows, that it makes up a certain %age of all the videos on their site. Im sure the instinct to do this is there, but again the way the net works means it may seem a tad too absurd even to some who would normally support such policies. I waffled about some of this stuff when the Pulver FCC 'keep net video unregulated' stuff was mentioned here a month or so ago. There wasnt a big discussion about it, possibly I made it seem infinitely dull, possibly at this stage the detail is not interesting because 95% of it doesnt directly concern regulation of content, censorship etc that would directly impact on video creators. Its of more potential concern to those who would own these new media platforms, or provide some service , network or whatever. The regulators are used to being some ort of 'balance' against the powerful companies that work the industry, but when it comes to new media its not clear if, when or who thee entities will be, whether they will ever come to have power on the scale that normal mass media has, or whether increasing diversity and choice makes much of this stuff irrelevent. One possible reality is that the 'freedom' we have gained through internet video, is the freedom from editorial control. Editorial control economic constraints sometimes acted as an internal censorship system, along with the possible need to appeal to the mass audeince and not offend anybody. Government regulation could only reestablish that stuff by limiting the number of service-providers who will let you host video, then most of the old rules would reapply themselves. The other approach is mre direct censorship via application of 'broadcasting standdards' onto everyone who makes video. But they know this will seriously impare the new media industry, so they will only do it if they are really scared by the developments the internet has brought. Meanwhile I think that many existing laws can be applied to someone making 'objectionable' videos on the net already. Its just that as far as I know, they havent felt the need to use any of this stuff yet. If a controvertial enough person somes along and vlogs, Im sure they will. The EU version of things looks at Advertising regulation more than that Canadian document I read. I believ in advertising regulation, and again I think some rules could already be applied to the net. There is a ban on Tobacco advertising in the EU, and even though somebody could have a go at testing the waters by flouting this rule on the net, its probably not a risk most entities would take, and such things have in many countries become accepted mainstream positions self-policed cultural norms, where peoples sense that its 'not th done thing' is more powerful than any legislation could ever be. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Canada, the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC (in the US), so this is TERRIBLE NEWS: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html
Re: [videoblogging] NOOOOOOO!!!!
I'm hoping to move to Canada next year, so this makes my buttocks tighten even more. I don't see how they could regulate it in the same way, but time to organize and make your/our voices heard right now, I guess. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ On 14 Apr 2007, at 21:30, Casey McKinnon wrote: In Canada, the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC (in the US), so this is TERRIBLE NEWS: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html The CRTC are the creators of a crappy thing called CanCon (Canadian Content) which forces broadcasters to play a large percentage of Canadian Content, therefore making our television SUCK. Keep the Internet free!!! Casey --- http://galacticast.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
I think the confusion centres around this bit I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base Unless something has changed recently and Im out of date, it is baseline profile that you want to select to make ipod compatible h264. simple profile is an older mpeg4 profile to the best of my knowledge. o in advanced h264 settings, untick main and tick baseline. Then if youve got the right res, framerate etc, you'll end up with ipod apple-tv compatible .mp4 files. The Apple TV can also work with h264 main profile, but it wont be ipod compatible if you use that (slightly better quality) profile. Other reasons to do it this way, apart from having control over bitrate and ths filesize, is that quicktime would sometimes make bad decisions about how to resize footage. Michael Verdi talked about this quite a lot on the past, maybeit is better now that theyve gone for alrger resolutions? Anyway most of my experience on this is quicktime on the mac, but it should be mostly the same on windows. The options may be selected ina slightly different place but should be mostly the same, baseline. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmm Im not sure I understand. Do you not see the limit bitrate option in the h.264 settings? Or are you saying that regarless of the bitrate settings the standard h.264 codec in windows QTPro cant be ipod compatabe? I've not done alot of testing ... just been clicking around in the options screen. I'll see if I can get an h.264 640x480 on my ipod this weekend (from windows QTpro). On 4/14/07, Chumley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey David, Thanks for looking into that, oh but let me clarify. I need the resulting MP4 with h.264 codec to be 640x480 and iPod compatable. I could of course use the m4v export to ipod option but my show is very very long (usually 1 hour 30 mins)and the straight export make the file size WAY to huge. Thus needing to manipulate the bitrate. Rev. Chumley --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Meade meade.dave@ wrote: Hmm, I seem to be able to do it ok in QT Pro on my PC. (There is a settings button where you can set all the h.264 settings, but you have to then click an entirely different size button to set the size). I'll try to create a video w/ these settings on my PC today and out it online somewhere. On 4/14/07, Chumley metaflibble@ wrote: Speaking of settings, Does anyone know of a program (on PC) that allows bitrate manipulation of h.264 codec MP4s in 640x480? I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base. Rev. Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon caseymckinnon@ wrote: Time to share... For those interested parties... you don't have to export from Movie to Apple TV. With these settings, you can get a file %50 of the size you would get with the default settings. Just click on Movie to QuickTime Movie in QuickTime Pro and enter the settings in this screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseymckinnon/433249448/ If you're using 4:3 instead of 16:9, put the dimensions as 640x480 instead of 640x360. Lots of love, Rudy and Casey --- http://galacticast.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
[videoblogging] Re: NOOOOOOO!!!!
I created a Facebook group called Canadians for New Media Freedom here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2319008732 In all honesty, I don't care about trying to highlight Canadian voices... I believe you'll find your audience if people like you, so why force Canadian content on Canadians? I'm just worried about the implications of a regulated new media... no more ass-rape gags on GALACTICAST and no more sexually suggestive topics on KITKAST. We couldn't have made the content we've made if we were regulated by the CRTC. How are we to be sure that this isn't the CRTC's way of cramming their foot in our door? Once they're able to regulate us, they can broaden their jurisdiction upon us. Casey --- http://galacticast.com/ --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm hoping to move to Canada next year, so this makes my buttocks tighten even more. I don't see how they could regulate it in the same way, but time to organize and make your/our voices heard right now, I guess. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ On 14 Apr 2007, at 21:30, Casey McKinnon wrote: In Canada, the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC (in the US), so this is TERRIBLE NEWS: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html The CRTC are the creators of a crappy thing called CanCon (Canadian Content) which forces broadcasters to play a large percentage of Canadian Content, therefore making our television SUCK. Keep the Internet free!!! Casey --- http://galacticast.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: NOOOOOOO!!!!
Oh I do agree that it could be a foot in the door. Its just really unclear how far that sort of censorship will go on the internet in the future, by any country. Do you know specifically what current regulation would prevent sexually suggestive or ass-rape jokes from being done by you if they applied them to the net. Traditional regulation of such things usually involves what time they are shown, and certain fixed limits on specific sexual images/scenes. Here in the UK we have some ludicrously outmoded broadcast laws that limit hardcore porn. But they dont stop all sorts of programing that talks in a sexually explicit way, or quite a lot of dark humor that is in very 'bad taste'. So Im very keen to explore these issues, and what sort of censorship we have at the moment, whether most of the stuff we'd ever dream of doing has only traditionally been censored by editorial power, not regulation. My opinion is that, from what Ive seen, neither of your shows breaks laws, if it wasnt possible to show such stuff on TV in the past then it would be due to editorial or commercial barriers to entry. Meanwhile, things that 99% of people would surely want legislated against, such as for example underage sex videos, are Im quite sure already regulated and illegal. I bet laws against advertising unapproved medical apparatus other quackery practises are also already covered no matter what medium the advertising is done through? So in relatively liberal societies what sort of censorship do we actually think is a possible outcome of regulation down the road? For me, things like Video On Demand destroy the simple model that results in outrage about Janet Jacksons nipple at the superbowl - its a ll about context, and on demand there is no sense that 'indecent stuff' is being broadcast to 'vunerable youngsters'. Here in the UK the satellite movie channels have just abandoned the idea of a watershed, and now adult films can be shown at any time of the day, a new PIN system is supposed to stop kids from seeing these things that they shouldnt. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I created a Facebook group called Canadians for New Media Freedom here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2319008732 In all honesty, I don't care about trying to highlight Canadian voices... I believe you'll find your audience if people like you, so why force Canadian content on Canadians? I'm just worried about the implications of a regulated new media... no more ass-rape gags on GALACTICAST and no more sexually suggestive topics on KITKAST. We couldn't have made the content we've made if we were regulated by the CRTC. How are we to be sure that this isn't the CRTC's way of cramming their foot in our door? Once they're able to regulate us, they can broaden their jurisdiction upon us. Casey --- http://galacticast.com/ --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rupert rupert@ wrote: I'm hoping to move to Canada next year, so this makes my buttocks tighten even more. I don't see how they could regulate it in the same way, but time to organize and make your/our voices heard right now, I guess. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ On 14 Apr 2007, at 21:30, Casey McKinnon wrote: In Canada, the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC (in the US), so this is TERRIBLE NEWS: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html The CRTC are the creators of a crappy thing called CanCon (Canadian Content) which forces broadcasters to play a large percentage of Canadian Content, therefore making our television SUCK. Keep the Internet free!!! Casey --- http://galacticast.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: NOOOOOOO!!!!
That's absolutely my concern, too. And even if your content isn't censored as such, I'd be worried that you'd be subject to bureaucratic bullshit - having to get your content Rated, forcing users to confirm they're over a certain age, confirming the %age of your production team and locations that are Canadian, providing your broadcasts in both English and French! I don't know if this is fair, but it has always seemed to me that Canadian govts, both provincial and federal, seem to do this kind of stuff much more easily than either the US, EU or UK govts - and that's saying something! And the terrible thing about unnecessary legislation and bureaucracy is that, unchecked, it relentlessly seeks out more things to regulate. Again, this may be unfair but in my experience the Canadian public and media in general just seem to be more used to / unbothered by having all sorts of bureaucracy govt piled onto them. My sister who lives in BC (a medical herbalist with an MSc) was put out of business a few years ago by the Govt suddenly deciding to regulate the selling of herbs (so that the drug cos could cash in). In the EU, undemocratic though it is, there are enough conflicting voices to stir it up a bit and fight some of the excesses, particularly where they affect business and global transactions; in the UK freedom of speech and govt interference gets debated hotly by the media, even if the people themselves don't care that much; and in the States i can't imagine the might and mass of internet users being defeated on something like this. Fight the good fight ! Work out what their game is. There must be someone who's set to benefit - maybe only the bureaucrats themselves. I'm going to sign up with Facebook finally so that I can join your group. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ On 14 Apr 2007, at 23:31, Casey McKinnon wrote: How are we to be sure that this isn't the CRTC's way of cramming their foot in our door? Once they're able to regulate us, they can broaden their jurisdiction upon us. Casey --- http://galacticast.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: pyro.tv transcoding and rehosting your stuff
By reencoding footage they are on extremely rocky legal ground. They are actively redistributing content, and so they absolutely must adhere to peoples license. They cant try and wriggle around in the grey area that some who only embed videos have over this issue in the past. They are also most definatly making commercial use of these videos, they are a company, its a business (see http://www.vibesolutions.net/vsg/htdocs/about/press_release-20070327.jsp for example) , and again by re-encoding and hosting I think the issue is much less grey. So they are commercial, so even if they properly honoured the other creative commons terms such as attribution and displaying the license, they are not granted the rights they are taking. The only grey I can see in this issue is if someone legally ruled that such use of video was not commercial. If I were that judge I would obviously not come to such a determination, being as the video is the main commodity that creates value for these businesses. They are not the first to cling to the DMCA ideas about copyright, that we must opt-out of this leechery. In the past some here have thought this an innapropriate defense, being as DMCA provisions apply to the likes of youtube and users uploading copyrighted clips on a manual basis. Wheras wholesale ripping of RSS syndication feeds on an automatic basis, doesnt quite seem within the spirit of that particualr DMCA mechanism, as Veoh found out to their peril. This conversation faded out again last time without any satisfactory conclusion to the 'show creative commons license on your site' issue. I was someone who wanted blip.tv to exert more pressure on its partners to make sure this information is present on the partner sites. I havent seen this happening, but then again if sites like network2 are opt-in now, then I suppose it doesnt amtter so much if they dont show creative commons feed info? Its the opt-out ones that need to make sure they follow every letter of a license because they havent received rights explicitly granted to them by the video creators, they have to rely on the cc ones. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We had our stuff removed last month and we're working through partners to get them to realize that reencoding is not cool. -K --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], ryanne hodson ryanne.hodson@ wrote: i also got a response from them saying what sull had said that they transcode so it's a more reliable playback experience... Ryanne - I'll have your channel removed as soon as possible. Just an FYI, I understand that transcoding and hosting is an issue, but we decided to go ahead with it because it significantly improves the viewing experience in a web environment. We track all viewing data (not just downloads) and will be making it available to all publishers in the next week. On 4/14/07, Steve Garfield steve@ wrote: I blogged about it here: http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2007/03/mike-hudacks-rules-for- video-sharing.html or http://tinyurl.com/2pvyg9 And posted their initial response: Update from Pyro.tv via Roxanne: I understand the importance of tracking views and data. We will be soon releasing a tool for publishers like yourself to get direct visibility to your feed and titles performance through our service. I will let you know when it is available. In the meantime, I'd be happy to pass along any data we had already gathered (granted we have only been public for a few days). I have passed your feedback to our product group and will be implementing changes as soon as we can. If you visit the site you should see that the pyro.tv watermark in the player has already been removed. I am also recommending a clear link in the player area titled Visit this publisher's website or something similar, among other changes to provide clear information about the content owner and rights. Any additional feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. On Apr 14, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: Hey, A few of us contacted them last month and since then they have removed the branding from the video and added a link back to the website. They still don't link to the permalink of the post and they don't display the CC license that's embedded in my RSS feed. It's right in my feed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ --Steve On Apr 14, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Blip's ads do not play through. That's a factor... Jan On 4/14/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com wrote: In the gold rushes the people who got rich were the ones selling pans and shovels, not the panners. People who are out to make a buck on the back of another will always
[videoblogging] Re: NOOOOOOO!!!!
From my limited knowledge as an outsider, Candas style of legislation looks to me like a cross between the wider EU way of doing things, some stuff that seems quite a bit stronger, similar to France and their sense of strong promotion of one national culture by government. with the close geographical proximity to the USA, along with strong US cultural influences, acting as a catalyst to heighten these concerns and provide political will to act. I do want to know more about the details that could affect content creators. Its just that right now when I look at the details, nearly all of it is about regulating the other pwoers, busines private powers. Is the old line about 'the only way to have freedom of press is to own one' made obsolete by the net, and to what extent? The need to subtitle in French is a great example where 'well meaning quality' legislation can place a big burden on little creators. There are laws in the UK about website access for people with disabilities, which I assume are hard to enforce but would be taken into account by large companies with a certain sort of net presence, providing services deemed worthy of needing to be accessible to all, partly as the regulators are more likely to notice and actively regulate them. There probably lots of other examples and the little content creator could be likened to the small businessman, with the arguments against regulation, because the little business doesnt have the resources to comply, and so the corporate giants always dominate. These are interesting debates and there is a good point there, but its also where unscrupulous businesses can create a space to exploit people a bit too much. Regulation sounds like a dirty freedom-removing word, but las against children climbing up chimneys to clean them are also regulations. The freedom to exploit is not a freedom Im keen to defend, which is why you will find me not being too keen to be a born again supported of deregulation. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's absolutely my concern, too. And even if your content isn't censored as such, I'd be worried that you'd be subject to bureaucratic bullshit - having to get your content Rated, forcing users to confirm they're over a certain age, confirming the %age of your production team and locations that are Canadian, providing your broadcasts in both English and French! I don't know if this is fair, but it has always seemed to me that Canadian govts, both provincial and federal, seem to do this kind of stuff much more easily than either the US, EU or UK govts - and that's saying something! And the terrible thing about unnecessary legislation and bureaucracy is that, unchecked, it relentlessly seeks out more things to regulate. Again, this may be unfair but in my experience the Canadian public and media in general just seem to be more used to / unbothered by having all sorts of bureaucracy govt piled onto them. My sister who lives in BC (a medical herbalist with an MSc) was put out of business a few years ago by the Govt suddenly deciding to regulate the selling of herbs (so that the drug cos could cash in). In the EU, undemocratic though it is, there are enough conflicting voices to stir it up a bit and fight some of the excesses, particularly where they affect business and global transactions; in the UK freedom of speech and govt interference gets debated hotly by the media, even if the people themselves don't care that much; and in the States i can't imagine the might and mass of internet users being defeated on something like this. Fight the good fight ! Work out what their game is. There must be someone who's set to benefit - maybe only the bureaucrats themselves. I'm going to sign up with Facebook finally so that I can join your group. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ On 14 Apr 2007, at 23:31, Casey McKinnon wrote: How are we to be sure that this isn't the CRTC's way of cramming their foot in our door? Once they're able to regulate us, they can broaden their jurisdiction upon us. Casey --- http://galacticast.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: NOOOOOOO!!!!
Oops sorry I didnt mean to typo Canada. Found an article from some years back when there was some focus on much the same issue: http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-CRTC---the-Internet--Forbidden-Domain/176409 Im not sure Id agree with its use of that strange child pron case judgement as an example of why CRTC doesnt have jurastiction over the net, as they made it sound like the judgemnt was based on 'artistic merit' which has nothing to do with whether it was on the net or a computer, but the article made some other interesting points about why widescale regulation of individual creators seems unlikely. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my limited knowledge as an outsider, Candas style of legislation looks to me like a cross between the wider EU way of doing things, some stuff that seems quite a bit stronger, similar to France and their sense of strong promotion of one national culture by government. with the close geographical proximity to the USA, along with strong US cultural influences, acting as a catalyst to heighten these concerns and provide political will to act. I do want to know more about the details that could affect content creators. Its just that right now when I look at the details, nearly all of it is about regulating the other pwoers, busines private powers. Is the old line about 'the only way to have freedom of press is to own one' made obsolete by the net, and to what extent? The need to subtitle in French is a great example where 'well meaning quality' legislation can place a big burden on little creators. There are laws in the UK about website access for people with disabilities, which I assume are hard to enforce but would be taken into account by large companies with a certain sort of net presence, providing services deemed worthy of needing to be accessible to all, partly as the regulators are more likely to notice and actively regulate them. There probably lots of other examples and the little content creator could be likened to the small businessman, with the arguments against regulation, because the little business doesnt have the resources to comply, and so the corporate giants always dominate. These are interesting debates and there is a good point there, but its also where unscrupulous businesses can create a space to exploit people a bit too much. Regulation sounds like a dirty freedom-removing word, but las against children climbing up chimneys to clean them are also regulations. The freedom to exploit is not a freedom Im keen to defend, which is why you will find me not being too keen to be a born again supported of deregulation. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rupert rupert@ wrote: That's absolutely my concern, too. And even if your content isn't censored as such, I'd be worried that you'd be subject to bureaucratic bullshit - having to get your content Rated, forcing users to confirm they're over a certain age, confirming the %age of your production team and locations that are Canadian, providing your broadcasts in both English and French! I don't know if this is fair, but it has always seemed to me that Canadian govts, both provincial and federal, seem to do this kind of stuff much more easily than either the US, EU or UK govts - and that's saying something! And the terrible thing about unnecessary legislation and bureaucracy is that, unchecked, it relentlessly seeks out more things to regulate. Again, this may be unfair but in my experience the Canadian public and media in general just seem to be more used to / unbothered by having all sorts of bureaucracy govt piled onto them. My sister who lives in BC (a medical herbalist with an MSc) was put out of business a few years ago by the Govt suddenly deciding to regulate the selling of herbs (so that the drug cos could cash in). In the EU, undemocratic though it is, there are enough conflicting voices to stir it up a bit and fight some of the excesses, particularly where they affect business and global transactions; in the UK freedom of speech and govt interference gets debated hotly by the media, even if the people themselves don't care that much; and in the States i can't imagine the might and mass of internet users being defeated on something like this. Fight the good fight ! Work out what their game is. There must be someone who's set to benefit - maybe only the bureaucrats themselves. I'm going to sign up with Facebook finally so that I can join your group. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ On 14 Apr 2007, at 23:31, Casey McKinnon wrote: How are we to be sure that this isn't the CRTC's way of cramming their foot in our door? Once they're able to regulate us, they can broaden their
[videoblogging] The Spirit Moves Me
I don't understand myself at times. I posted two pieces at once. Excuse me. I apologize for stepping up like this. I have no idea what's come over me. Probably the free Jamba Juice coupon I got in the mail today. http://x.nnon.tv/reasonable_illusions/2007/04/merry_go_round.html http://x.nnon.tv/reasonable_illusions/2007/04/hamlet_halo.html -- Reasonable Illusions http://x.nnon.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Our Apple TV Settings
Baseline works fine in h.264 320x240 for ipods, but baseline profile in 640x480 h.264 is not ipod compatable at any bitrate. In order for it to be ipod compatable at 640x480 it has to be in the new Simple h.264 profile. I've tried every bitrate I can think of in h.264 with baseline profile but none of them will transfer if its in 640x480. Straight MP4 will work, but it looks terrible compared to h.264 and the file size is always larger. But of course I could be doing something wrong. If someone can make a MP4 h.264 codec in 640x480 and have it transfer to an ipod I'll jump for joy because i've been stuck with 320x240 format because of file size. Rev. Chumley --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the confusion centres around this bit I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base Unless something has changed recently and Im out of date, it is baseline profile that you want to select to make ipod compatible h264. simple profile is an older mpeg4 profile to the best of my knowledge. o in advanced h264 settings, untick main and tick baseline. Then if youve got the right res, framerate etc, you'll end up with ipod apple-tv compatible .mp4 files. The Apple TV can also work with h264 main profile, but it wont be ipod compatible if you use that (slightly better quality) profile. Other reasons to do it this way, apart from having control over bitrate and ths filesize, is that quicktime would sometimes make bad decisions about how to resize footage. Michael Verdi talked about this quite a lot on the past, maybeit is better now that theyve gone for alrger resolutions? Anyway most of my experience on this is quicktime on the mac, but it should be mostly the same on windows. The options may be selected ina slightly different place but should be mostly the same, baseline. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Meade meade.dave@ wrote: hmm Im not sure I understand. Do you not see the limit bitrate option in the h.264 settings? Or are you saying that regarless of the bitrate settings the standard h.264 codec in windows QTPro cant be ipod compatabe? I've not done alot of testing ... just been clicking around in the options screen. I'll see if I can get an h.264 640x480 on my ipod this weekend (from windows QTpro). On 4/14/07, Chumley metaflibble@ wrote: Hey David, Thanks for looking into that, oh but let me clarify. I need the resulting MP4 with h.264 codec to be 640x480 and iPod compatable. I could of course use the m4v export to ipod option but my show is very very long (usually 1 hour 30 mins)and the straight export make the file size WAY to huge. Thus needing to manipulate the bitrate. Rev. Chumley --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Meade meade.dave@ wrote: Hmm, I seem to be able to do it ok in QT Pro on my PC. (There is a settings button where you can set all the h.264 settings, but you have to then click an entirely different size button to set the size). I'll try to create a video w/ these settings on my PC today and out it online somewhere. On 4/14/07, Chumley metaflibble@ wrote: Speaking of settings, Does anyone know of a program (on PC) that allows bitrate manipulation of h.264 codec MP4s in 640x480? I have quicktime pro but you cant go 640x480 AND manipulate bitrate that I can figure out because they don't have simple profile yet just base. Rev. Chumley http://www.cultofuhf.com --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Casey McKinnon caseymckinnon@ wrote: Time to share... For those interested parties... you don't have to export from Movie to Apple TV. With these settings, you can get a file %50 of the size you would get with the default settings. Just click on Movie to QuickTime Movie in QuickTime Pro and enter the settings in this screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseymckinnon/433249448/ If you're using 4:3 instead of 16:9, put the dimensions as 640x480 instead of 640x360. Lots of love, Rudy and Casey --- http://galacticast.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
