It looks like video production is going the way of photography. It will be
harder and harder to make a living from delivering high production quality
video when it is increasingly in the hands of more people.
It also means we'll see larger sums of money traditionally paid to one
person be split
Good revision. :)
I always found WMM 2.1 to be reasonably stable and used it for most of my
vlogs. People were always surprised which editor I used. (
http://cookingkittycorner.blip.tv/file/44076/) Previous versions would crash
regularly but that was over 5 years ago.
As for Comic Sans
As a Canadian, it seems hysterical to me as well.
If bandwidth concerns were in fact misleading than you would expect
countries with a lot of competition (e.g. UK) to have ISPs all offering
unlimited bandwidth at ultra low costs. The opposite seems to be the case.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00
Ah, the good old Wikipedia Vlogging article. It actually got nominated for
deletion years ago due to a lack of reliable sources. I decided to clean it
up and begin contributing sources to it and I managed to change the outcome
of the vote. Let's just say it was a..uh..thankless job. :)
I
Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty,
the trailing ... seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being
silly. ;)
Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron
For a long time, photos could be considered the smoking gun. If you
were told: John is gay. You'd probably ask around before believing
it but if you saw a photo that's all you needed.
Photos have quickly become unreliable and we've had to go back to the
tried and true method of investigative
Congrats to Andrew and all involved!
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed
to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for
any niche itch. And all the niche content creators
amen to that.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered
situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and
demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge
Agreed. Sorry Adam but that article was garbage. No references and
pure fear mongering. As i read Jay's first post I thought about how
we've moved away from uninformed fear mongering arguments about net
neutrality. Does anyone remember the Rocketboom highway analogy
video? Anyone who's ever
Interesting indeed.
I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never
should have had to buy Youtube in the first place.
I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very instering article on
Another thing to definitely consider.
but getting back to the topic at hand, i'd summarize the conversation
as the following:
Mac - It's much more expensive but a better value and you'll be very happy
PC - You'll be reasonably happy and have more money in your pocket but
you'll have a higher
looks great and performs just fine if
you are not in a big hurry.
I rarely choose to rant on this list. It's kinda fun to get out of my box
though. :-)
Aloha and thanks for listening,
Rox
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Another thing
I've heard a lot of talk of Extended Warranties in this thread so I
just want to throw in that people should never buy extended
warranties. Manufacturing defects will appear within the manufacturer
warranty period. The only reason anyone offers an extended warranty
is because it's a guaranteed
I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be
a wise choice. This is especially true if you are in a financial
situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first
place.
It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a
bet and the one
I love PCs and I would never give up my Windows Media Center for a Mac
but in your case I would still maybe recommend Mac.
When comparing hardware, Macs actually do come out cheaper. If price
is a big issue, you can find a much cheaper PC notebook and you will
probably be quite satisfied with
Try using WinFF. It's a windows front-end for ffmpeg. It's free and
easy to use.
http://www.winff.org/
According to freevlog, you could alternatively use Streamclip to
convert mov files to avi.
Here's a tip, it's faster to convert from mov to DV AVI files than
to convert from mov to wmv but
Streamclip: http://www.squared5.com/
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try using WinFF. It's a windows front-end for ffmpeg. It's free and
easy to use.
http://www.winff.org/
According to freevlog, you could alternatively use Streamclip
WOW!
You can tell the creators really love disney movies. If only they
loved the company as much. Unfortunately, that's not as easy.
What an incredible idea and quite a watchable one too. Something i
wouldn't have expected.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diveristy and tolerance goes both ways.
Heath
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means
the online video community is rational
to be some
sort of higher quality .flv, I havent tried to work out what codec
or res.
Cheers
Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
pdelongchamp@ wrote:
Some great news, Youtube is taking early steps at providing higher
quality videos
Some great news, Youtube is taking early steps at providing higher
quality videos.
By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to
watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is
actually quite noticeable though not all videos have been converted at
this
, Patrick Delongchamp
pdelongchamp@
wrote:
I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread.
http://heyspread.com/
It supports the video sharing sites listed below but,
unfortunately,
it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services
I can't imagine they get many sales with the Order Now button on page 12.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LOL!
As a geek trying to turn entrepreneur I have great compassion on people
building something great and then pondering the how do I let people
I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread.
http://heyspread.com/
It supports the video sharing sites listed below but, unfortunately,
it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to
upload content for multiple video sites?
Sites supported by
Ah ha! I found two more.
VideoPostRobot (software, not free) http://videopostrobot.com/
TubeMogul (web service, 150 free uploads per month) http://www.tubemogul.com/
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was looking for other crossposting services
lol. pretty smart.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disgusting.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/
There
that's a lot of laughing
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lol. pretty smart.
so is rigging elections.
i know the Kenyans have been laughing for over a month now
A wise man once said: Religion poisons everything.
I didn't quite understand what it meant until I tried logging onto
Youtube Sunday.
I'm calling it right now folks.
Worst. Sunday. Ever.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In
Amen to that.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/wr_nm/internet_fcc_dc
The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said on Monday
he is ready, willing and able to stop broadband providers that
What the fuck?? An interminably long psychedelic fly-over of Jupiter?!?
*rolls eyes*
Fuck you Chris.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Artsy people watch 2001: A Space Odyssey over and over and over and
when you ask questions about what the hell is going
I am confused. i think we both agree that transparency is necessary.
On Feb 16, 2008 12:38 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
find it
Irresponsible?
No more irresponsible than a local all you can eat restaurant
crying foul if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food
served. All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the
guests. Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who
have had one serving
Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
Additionally, there will
I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it
won't get transcoded. It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was
uploaded.
On Feb 13, 2008 11:19 AM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This link is NSFW, but anybody have any ideas how to get higher bitrate
Sounds like you're well within their terms of use. Could it be your
location? I would speak to my neighbors to find out if they're
getting more reliable connections from different providers.
On Feb 12, 2008 10:33 AM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.wireless-weblog.com/50226711/
Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
has increased by 40% each year.
Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator
misunderstanding about what network
neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard
On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
has increased by 40% each year.
Why allow companies to charge
I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of
bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation
and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
build better networks for those paying for it.
If your grandmother wants to download movies every
The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would
be great to have more transparency. Even enforced transparency if it
makes sense to do so.
Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though? Should you be
fighting for this instead of net neutrality? It seems like if
Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any
business sense. It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
they're really high. I've never
I was out and about Sunday around town and saw about two dozen people
wearing masks scattered around the city throughout the day. Two
walking by during brunch, a few on the subway, a few on the streets
here and there. It took all day before it this thread clicked in my
head and I realized what
Wrote something inspired by the day's discussions on which we can all mediate..
Religious beliefs,
Conspiracies, Idiot.
Always ask for proof.
On Feb 10, 2008 4:04 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is evidence for all of those things, often not a single smoking
gun, but
Kid Rock Starves To Death
MP3 Piracy Blamed
May 17, 2000
LOS ANGELES–MP3 piracy of copyrighted music claimed another victim
Monday, when the emaciated body of rock-rap superstar Kid Rock was
found on the median of La Cienega Boulevard.
How many more artists must die of starvation before we put
Just because the article uses the word tiered service doesn't mean
this is in any way related to Net Neutrality.
In Toronto, Rogers provides internet services and charges different
prices based on the amount of bandwidth you want. i.e. If you're only
going to surf email, you get Rogers
is proper acknowledgment not a fair request?
I'm surprised you think this is the issue. Of course it's a fair
request. The problem Andreas is the way in which you requested the
acknowledgment. An apology in order and you have yet to offer one or
address the issue. That would have cut this
Or you could try enjoying video in a whole new way.
at your local gay video dance bar.
http://www.sfbadlands.com/
On Jan 17, 2008 3:19 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Den 17.01.2008 kl. 16:05 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So how about Lumish... stuff
Andreas,
We should totally start up a Videoblogging 'Burn Book'.
Roxanne is too gay to function.
Robert Scobble made out with a hot dog.
On Jan 12, 2008 7:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rox,
I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they
lol, i'm sorry. I don't even know what that meant. I bring nothing
to this discussion. Please carry on.
On Jan 14, 2008 4:39 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas,
We should totally start up a Videoblogging 'Burn Book'.
Roxanne is too gay to function.
Robert Scobble
://pawsitivevybe.com
On Dec 30, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both right' but
I
think
this was an example of truthiness vs. critical thinking.
I have no doubt that the majority of this community
bad it is.
Heath
http://batmangeek.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us.
The
last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents
very
often
attacks within the confines of net neutrality. Just an argument to
say that there are dangers on both sides of the issue. Let's stick to
the topic at hand.
On Dec 31, 2007 12:45 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Cnet, Wired, etc who have talked
and written about ISP traffic shaping. Glad to hear you arn't
affected.
Heath
http://batmangeek.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent
Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both right' but I think
this was an example of truthiness vs. critical thinking.
I have no doubt that the majority of this community is capable of the
latter. They're just less often heard.
It was interesting to see my original argument take human
Perhaps I should have said people that distrust the Wikipedia model.
Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an
important part of anything you read online. The threshold for
inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier.
Any statements that are not
And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly
the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This
kind of stuff only starts flame wars.
On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL
I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit
down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters
strudel. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic
shows, etc. (keyword: try) Shows that are likely to get good
ratings/demographics get picked
Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they
are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break
Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia
Heath
http://batmangeek.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps
A good argument. I reread the posts a bit a I understand what is
meant by the viewer is the product.
I think everyone here seems to be saying the same thing in a different way.
It's hard to argue that money isn't at the root of everything.
Because of this, it's hard to say at the root of it,
lol, well said.
On Dec 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly
the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group
down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This
Jake, just shut up. ..you had me at 'hello'.
On Dec 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They care about crushing distributed media, just as power companies
care about crushing distributed power.
We are here because we believe in distributed media.
Please do
I realize that this topic is dying so I thought, what better time to
jump in? I have to say that, Robert, I agree with a lot of what you,
Andrew, Schlomo, etc have said over the last week.
If it's of any consolation, there's something I realized when dealing
with the Wikipedia issue: When
You've got to give props to someone who can get his client's video to
be most viewed on one of the most visited sites on the internet. I
imagine from his methods that he makes a pretty hefty margin on it
too.
It's Marketing 2.0.
Unfortunately, if everyone did this, youtube wouldn't be much fun
No vlogs yet? Someone *has* to be up for the challenge.
On Nov 16, 2007 7:57 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reactions are so funny ... I could only imagine because of teh
music that it might be something like a wedding or other normal scene
and ...
dubious cultural value?
lol, Brook, it's just a joke. If people want to participate, they'll
do it because it's funny. No cultural value implied. :P
On Nov 16, 2007 12:22 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well...
On 11/16/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
...i meant to say phenomenon
Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
Wikipedia Storm of '07.
Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
be right that it has very little to do with Videoblogging but it is
very much the videoblogging group. :)
I always found it interesting to
Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazed that you like it Patrick, as we all went to town about you
in April. It was enough to make me unsubscribe, because I got so
caught up with it.
I don't get the enjoyment of it.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
As much as people don't like seeing a thread derailed, I think people
also don't like seeing comments like take it to your blog.
I'd rather see a message that expresses please, no personal attacks
than those that express go back to where you came from. I guess
what I'm saying is that if you see
I'm definitely not a regular contributor but I agree with David.
This format just doesn't seem to be working as people keep
unsubscribing and whenever there *is* an interesting discussion, it
ends in bitterness.
A forum would probably work much much better. In order to properly
make the switch
Hey everyone,
I know there's about zero interest left in this. (i feel the same way,
i would have dropped it a long time ago if it weren't for my wiki
account on the chopping block)
Just wanted to report that the Ban Request has been closed with
results pasted below. Thankfully, if anything
Hey group,
The results are back from Mmeiser's proposed Wikipedia ban of pdelongchamp.
See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it:
I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced
material is not welcome on Wikipedia.
- EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Mike,
I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry.
It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being
discussed in the group.
pd
On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL
a number of group members and friends and so I can't
help but wonder what kind of person you really are.
Do you have a vlog?
Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or
your work anywhere.
Markus
On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
Hey Mike
I apologize.
I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David
Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys.
pat
-- Forwarded message --
From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Vlog
that I didn't vote: who wants to invite angry emails from someone
with such a peenie problem?)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com,
Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize.
I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend
minutes...
let's work together to follow wikipedia's rules but keep what we as
vloggers
know this new medium to be
On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Markus,
I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do
cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com
The response to Mmeiser's ban request:
*Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute
resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than
requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's
abuse here, you're going to have to provide
Hey Jay
Just wanted to make a quick reply.
Regarding the Star Trek article, there is a lot of discussion on the
article's talk page over notability and sources. (just to say it's still an
issue even if it doesn't appear to be at first) The fan made productions
seem to be notable as they have
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade
Someone save us!!!
On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com
wrote:
The response to Mmeiser's ban request
Sull,
It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had
conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes,
I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and
agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any
--when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be
traditional media? or can they come from blogs?
I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog
should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to
set a standard so how low should
I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about
in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather
make personal attacks than to actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning
for my edits.
i.e. I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that
82 matches
Mail list logo
