A former YouTube denizen come over to Blip.tv and the vlogosphere.
Whoot!
Welcome.
Jan
On 3/13/07, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My name is Shawn Carpenter and I have been vlogging now for about 3
weeks. In those 3 weeks I have managed to put up 5 videos and today I
posted my
The thing to keep in mind is that an email address is associated with the
software download; they are one.
And now, changing the subject, I'm experimenting using SpinExpress to get me
on target toward making a difficult documentary. One of my Spin groups is
called Distributed Ass Kickin' that
I was wondering if anyone from the DC metro area is on this list.
I'm hoping to meet with some of you just for fun.
Or if events are already happening, I'd love to join the fun.
Best,
Zulma
*
Zulma Aguiar
Electronic Artist
Arlington, VA (Washington DC)
Jonny Goldstein + DC Media Makers
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/56869
--
Bill C.
http://TheLab.blip.tv
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Zulma Aguiar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if anyone from the DC metro area is on this list.
I'm hoping to meet
Check it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/
I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking
break...I worry about the future I really doI mean yeah, they
have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real.
Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom
There are some DC area folks around here now, which is nice! For a long
time that wasn't the case... Of course I can never go to the DC Media
Makers get togethers because I work in Baltimore, but it's good the area is
building up its videoblogger base!
Cheers,
Leslye
[Non-text portions of
I honestly see this as a good thing - Google is just the company that can
take this type of stupid suing on and win. Here's to (hopefully) much more
content sharing!
David
On 3/13/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/
I mean seriously, 1
Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2
interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass
off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on
television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If
the big network execs
Deserved!
The only reason it hadnt happened earlier is because in the end, the longer
the infringing content was distributed on YT the better it would be for the
complaintifs while they strategize on whether partnering or suing would be
the ultimate decision.
Sharing content is one thing. Having
That is always an accurate point to make. But its besides the point.
And You better believe EVERY content company will be entering the net with
VOD services.
Whether it be on Joost or one of the other upcoming VideoOnDemand services
that wil be unleashed this year.
TV is coming to the net.
I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good shows,
we would watch them on TV instead of viewing their good clips online.
If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't
making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed
online?
--
If the viewers are there, the networks will come. There are still very,
very large questions regarding how advertising is going to work. This will
require them to make huge changes in their ad sales staffs, etc. Until
then, litigation appears to be their answer - we all know that story, aka
the
I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than just
a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but
since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional programming
model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get
well the viewers are already here... on the net.
so the content would be coming to the viewers just as much or more so than
the viewers coming to the content...
i think channels on the net will eventually work like channels on TV.
the idea of one BIG site like a youtube to contain all content
Sports are helping keep big cable/sat companies afloat I think. If it
weren't for DirecTV's awesome sports packages like Sunday Ticket and the
NCAA College Hoops package, TV would be completely irrelevant for me. I'm
on Blockbuster's movie thing (great), and I can watch all the [adult swim] I
Well personaly I don't think all traditional TV sucks but I do
agree the model is changing. I got a DVR just over a month ago and I
has transformed how I watch TV. I rarely watch a show when it is
scheduled, I watch when I want, how I want and in glorious HDyes
there are some shows that
The sports packages are more of a problem than a help. IMO, they are
some of the prime reasons for the rate hikes that are going on, that
and all these exclusive contracts which limit YOUR choice and force
you to pay out the nose. I love sports as much as the next guy but
what is happening is
Well at least I had enough sense to make the jump to Blip.TV early
before I invested too much time and energy into YouTube! Thanks for
the welcome! See you around!
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A former YouTube denizen come over to Blip.tv and
Not a bad idea, and it shouldn't have to be restricted to one day, since
Videoblogging Week is showcased year-round. Be interesting to see how many
videos we get...
H.
On 10 Mar 2007 14:29:43 -0800, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The video relay idea could work - would just need a
You're missing the point, Jen. Trying to work out how to get those who
*aren't* technically (yet) inclined to get their videos to us for
Videoblogging Week...You know, the ones who only know how to shoot video,
but don't yet know how to get the footage captured (not to mentioned
uploaded to
That and the fact that when you deploy citizen entertainment in your life,
you actually get to hang out with your celebrity heroes in person.
Why would I not want that kind of excitement in my life?
I don't want to hang out with those capable of attracting millions, either.
Those that attract a
Ah, but there may be MANY points, neh?
Many, many points.
Long-tail points.
Jan
On 3/13/07, Harold Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the point, Jen. Trying to work out how to get those who
*aren't* technically (yet) inclined to get their videos to us for
Videoblogging
Forwarding the message SpinXpress generated to invite all of you along for
the distributed production ride - great idea Jen.
Jan
-- Forwarded message --
Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:51:29 -0800
Subject: Videoblogging Week 2007
To: jannie.jan at gmail.com
jannie.jan at gmail dot com
Just created a Videoblogging Week 2007 Spin group and sent an email to this
list, inviting any and every to try it out.
Here's the tinyURL to the group's browser interface:
*http://tinyurl.com/2mz5ds
Am curious how Spin will act with an email list.
Perhaps since Spin doesn't belong to the
Viacom's a stupid organization. They'll lose big
time. I thnk Google should just buy them and fire
Summer Redstone.
Z
--- Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/
I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a
freaking
break...I worry about
The turn on, tune in, and put your feet on the ottoman model of
television marketing has been in decline since the invention of the first
remote control. Network loyalty has repeatedly been shown to be a
function largely of limiting viewer choice. The final nail in the coffin
of such a model
I wouldn't be so sure. As a lacrosse fan, the best way for me to see the
games I want is via the Internet.
--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
I don't see sports moving to the net anytime soon though, because of the
sheer amount of live production work it takes to make a successful
Well Viacom have said:
There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take
the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous
value in the process.
This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and
talent who create it and companies like Viacom
I know this has been dicussed before and I know how to do it with a
video camera, but I think that there is a way to take digital still and
then combine them to create stop motion as well. Is that correct? and
if so could someone please point me into the right direction? I am on
a PC not a
Theres loads of dedicated software to do that, this list is a starting
point, some of its freeware:
http://www.stopmotionworks.com/stopmosoftwr.htm
Alternatively some video editing packages probably have a feature to
import pictures. For this to be a nice solution they need to enable
you to
Funny you mention stopmotion animation as I just finished adding it to
the San Francisco SuperHappyVlogHouse page...
http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com
What editing software do you use? PC or Mac?
With stills, just import them into your editor of choice and lower the
length of each pic in
Who was charging to encode in DivX?
Jim V
DivX, Inc.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what I was looking for.
I decided on the hi-quality single bit h.264.
(Are they still charging content creators to encode using DivX?)
Any other opinions
I know you can do this for free on a PC with Windows Movie Maker. Here are
two short experiments I did last year:
http://davidleeking.com/etc/2006/07/ball-and-hand-another-animation-test.html
and
http://davidleeking.com/etc/2006/07/testing-stop-motion-animation.html
Both used Windows Movie Maker
I'm on a PC and I use Sony Vegas (the lite version) for my video
editing, I've done a crude version of it but never any great
detail
And time, I never have it but that's never stopped me!
Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well Viacom have said:
There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take
the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous
value in the process.
This is value that rightfully
http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/
That is the single best resource for stopmotion online. The Handbook
section is great for starting out, and the Message Board section is great
when you run into problems and need answers.
My favorite pc stopmo framegrabber:
http://www.stopmotionpro.com/
On
IIRC, DivX was a $500 purchase if you wanted to encode video using DivX.
Of course that was around 2000-2002 or so, and it totally could have
been less money, but I remember wanting to use it, but not wanting to
pay so much to do so legally.
$19.99 is a much better price.
Ron Watson
On the
That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the
users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending
the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once
they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from
uploading
Well yes, using the comparison to video services that re-show vloggers
stuff without honouring the license, youtube would be comparable to a
site where the users submitted peoples rss feeds, as opposed to the
site themselves deliberately going out and selecting content to put on
their site without
The $20 is the price for the software div pro, wheras I think the $500
dollars refers to the license to distribute div-encoded content that
divx sells to commercial users.
I seem to remember vaguely ranting about this stuff, and questioning
whether it would affect vloggers, ages ago. I thought I
We have had an open offer of not only free encoding license vor video,
but also covering mp3 encoding for quite a while now. I've been here
since 2002. Non commercial has always been free.
Anyway, hit me up if you have any DivX questions or want more info
about free licensing.
Jim V
DivX, Inc.
First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline...
BROADCAST YOURSELF.
Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content.
But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would
be to become TV for the net.
And as the inevitable
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline...
BROADCAST YOURSELF.
Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated
Content.
Absolutely.
But they realized, or maybe knew all along,
As far as I know no site, none can completly stop pirated content
from being uploaded
And again I am not defending the practice of allowing such content.
I personaly think a BILLION dollars is streching it a bit. And I
respectfuly disagree and think this could have an impact on all
This is only going to make a pack of lawyers very happy. Viacom has
the legal right to protect their property.
They have now chosen to do so. This can't be disputed or parsed into
anything but what it is - they own the content and want to harvest the
profits from said product.
I think it is a
Thought you guys might be interested.
The St. Louis post dispatch mentioned the video I did on net neutrality.
*http://tinyurl.com/2ztg6h
... Richard
*
--
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv
[Non-text portions of this message have been
I'm not sure how many times I can say this but I am not defending the
uploading of copyrighted worksThe way the current law reads, the
DMCA (and yes the law sucks but for right now it's still the law) the
way the law reads is if they take down the material once they are
notified they are
Just as an aside I was not trying to be flip or dismiss the legit
claim or frustration for YT making a ton of money off of people's
legit content, but they did just announce a program to start paying
content creaters did they not?
Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
--- In
http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/64cbe5-7673
J
--
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure how many times I can say this but I am not defending the
uploading of copyrighted worksThe way the current law reads, the
DMCA (and yes the law sucks but for right now it's still the law) the
way the law
Once a year I try to go into the video conference and bada bing, I
crash out. Can't blame the computer this time. Oh well, I'll give it a
go again in a bit.
Gena
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/64cbe5-7673
J
This is something I would really like to know. For me I do a big show
once per week (5-7 minutes) and now I am doing a 30 second mobile
video each day (the quality isn't so hot though, but it is what it
is!) What I want to know is how often everyone puts up a new video or
how many you post per
It can be whatever you want it to be...no rules..
Me, personaly, I try to average once a week around the 5 minute or
under mark. But sometimes more or less depending on what I feel like
doingthe beauty of net video, no rules.
Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
--- In
We do shows that last anywhere from 2 to 15 minutes, but because of our
extremely busy schedules and because there's often a fair amount of
editing involved, we're doing good if we get out a post every other
week. We're considering a quality over quantity step, though, where
we post more like
In a perfect world I release a hour and 40 min long episode (including
usually a 10 min or so intro and sketch and a 1 to 1 1/2 hour B-movie
once every two weeks-ish.
Rev Chumley
http://www.cultofuhf.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is
Go listen to Dan Rather's keynote at SXSW.
http://2007.sxsw.com/blogs/podcasts.php/2007/03/13/
dan_rather_keynote_interview
jen
Jen Simmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jensimmons.com
http://milkweedmediadesign.com
267-235-6967
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heath, does your video camera take stills? I just do what Schlomo
said: string a whole mess of stills together. And I mean a
whhhole mess of them. This was a lot easier to do before
there was a cat in the house...she gets off on disturbing objects on
tables.
Takes forever. But the end
Not sure why this grab my attention however it did,
and curious to see if anyone else noticed...
today a lot of spam got into my comments that read
bad news
and the url linked back to the nytimes.com website...
the youtube lawsuit article was front page...
funky...hmmm...
nathan miller
58 matches
Mail list logo
