Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog on Days of Our Lives
Days of Our Lives - Woes of Blogging Chelsea [image: /days/archives/john-black.jpg] Chelsea complains about her lot in life in her video blog while charming Nick looks on and lets her know that he will be there for her. She doesn't know it's him of course. He calls himself Lonely Splicer. He says that he will help her. http://www.tvfodder.com/days/archives/2006/12/days_of_our_lives_woes_of_blog.shtml ...thus perpetuating the notion that all videoblogs are people whining and bitching in front of the camera. ; ) I'm confused, though - is Charming Nick in the room while she's doing it? Is he watching her on a webcam? If so, is this a vlog or a videochat? On 12/8/06, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello? He--llo? Does nobody care? Days of Our Lives PEOPLE! What... are you all afraid of offending Dan McVicar??? *sigh* My mother taped it... so if any of you care, I can put it online at some point. *sigh* Casey McKinnon, Full-time Videoblogger, Part-time Soap Opera Watcher --- http://www.galacticast.com/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Casey McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone, I was just working on my laptop while watching Days of Our Lives (guilty pleasure) and they mentioned that Chelsea (Bo and Billie's daughter) has a Video Blog. The episode aired today from 1-2pm EST, if anyone on the west coast can record it when it airs over there, please do. I think others would get a kick out of it... Best, Casey --- Casey McKinnon Executive Producer, Galacticast http://www.galacticast.com/ -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: vPIP 0.16g Beta (maintenance) released
Thanks! Unfortunately I made a mistake and modified an older version of vPIP. I've corrected that and as of 12/9/06 1:44 am Pacific Time USA, the correct one should be up. If you downloaded vPIP 0.16g before then, you may want to get the update. ;), Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, CarLBanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sweet, Enric I just loaded it on my site so if you need another test haven then feel free! On 12/8/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: video Playing In Place (vPIP) 0.16g Beta is now available. This is a maintenance release. This release tries to make closing a video somewhat possible on the Safari browser. The Safari browser does not remove a video if it's taken out of the browser page (removed from the DOM tree.) So the video continues to run with the sound audible but the video invisible, even though it's been told to be removed. This problem happens prior to build 420 of Safari. The version of Safari coming out on Leopard OS X should solve this. However on the Safari prior to Leopard, this version of vPIP will reload the web page when the [X Close] button is pressed. This is a partial solution and should hopefully make vPIP more useful on the Safari browser. The installation and usage page is at: http://utilities.cinegage.com/videos-playing-in-place/ About vPIP -- vPIP (video Playing In Place) dynamically embeds a link video after the viewer clicks on the link. Web pages load quickly with just image and text links. Then when the viewer clicks one of the links, it's replaced with the video. Clicking on another link closes the prior video and opens the new one. The supported video (and audio) formats are: * Quicktime o .mov o .mp4 o .mp3 (audio) o .smi or .smil o .3gp * Windows Media o .avi o .wmv o .asf o .wma (audio) * Flash o .swf o .flv I've tested the installation somewhat. Let me know if you see any problems. ;), Enric -===- http://www.cirne.com http://www.cinegage.com -- http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: Al online viewing booms, the amateurs give way to big media
WORD! Adam http://oneeyedview.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal
Fox, Viacom, CBS and NBC are in talks regarding the creation of a YouTube like site. The article link is http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx? type=internetNewsstoryid=2006-12-09T052820Z_01_N09422049_RTRUKOC_0_US- MEDIA-YOUTUBE.xmlsrc=rssrpc=22 Thoughts? Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv
Re: [videoblogging] vPIP 0.16g Beta (maintenance) released
Has the html code to be added to templates changed? i.e. do I have to redo all the templates? :) Thanks! Jan On 12/8/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: video Playing In Place (vPIP) 0.16g Beta is now available. This is a maintenance release. This release tries to make closing a video somewhat possible on the Safari browser. The Safari browser does not remove a video if it's taken out of the browser page (removed from the DOM tree.) So the video continues to run with the sound audible but the video invisible, even though it's been told to be removed. This problem happens prior to build 420 of Safari. The version of Safari coming out on Leopard OS X should solve this. However on the Safari prior to Leopard, this version of vPIP will reload the web page when the [X Close] button is pressed. This is a partial solution and should hopefully make vPIP more useful on the Safari browser. The installation and usage page is at: http://utilities.cinegage.com/videos-playing-in-place/ About vPIP -- vPIP (video Playing In Place) dynamically embeds a link video after the viewer clicks on the link. Web pages load quickly with just image and text links. Then when the viewer clicks one of the links, it's replaced with the video. Clicking on another link closes the prior video and opens the new one. The supported video (and audio) formats are: * Quicktime o .mov o .mp4 o .mp3 (audio) o .smi or .smil o .3gp * Windows Media o .avi o .wmv o .asf o .wma (audio) * Flash o .swf o .flv I've tested the installation somewhat. Let me know if you see any problems. ;), Enric -===- http://www.cirne.com http://www.cinegage.com -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal
*http://tinyurl.com/y7rbkm Easier to get to. :) Jan * On 12/9/06, tony.katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fox, Viacom, CBS and NBC are in talks regarding the creation of a YouTube like site. The article link is http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx? type=internetNewsstoryid=2006-12-09T052820Z_01_N09422049_RTRUKOC_0_US- MEDIA-YOUTUBE.xmlsrc=rssrpc=22 Thoughts? Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] vlog
This is exactly why we've started using the word shows at blip. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nox Dineen Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:11 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] vlog Given the amazing breadth in the scope of what's produced under the name of vlogging I'd have to agree with you. It generates an expectation of merely a multimedia blog. Plus, as an admitted linguaphile, I just hate the word. I'm curious, though, how many people pronounce it phoenetically and how many say it vee-logging. I think we can all agree that a much more hideous word (although a raging awesome concept) is glogging http://wearcam.org/glogs.htm. (I don't mind telling you that I almost peed my pants with glee when I found out I may be able to get my hands on an Eyetap http://www.eyetap.org/ and join the cyborg logging weirdos.) Nox On 12/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the age old question of terminology, I think vlogging and vloggers stuck. Surprisingly, even the regular You-Tube people identify with vlogging. -- Vox Noxi (blog) -- noxdineen.vox.com The Blair Bitch Project (vlog) -- www.blairbitchproject.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
I've never used Vlog or vlogging. I produce a video podcast or vidcast if your into shortening things. There isn't a single element of a personal or commerical blog in my work so I didn't see any reason to call it a vlog, but heck its all entertainment to me. Rev Chumley Cult of UHF -- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is exactly why we've started using the word shows at blip. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nox Dineen Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:11 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] vlog Given the amazing breadth in the scope of what's produced under the name of vlogging I'd have to agree with you. It generates an expectation of merely a multimedia blog. Plus, as an admitted linguaphile, I just hate the word. I'm curious, though, how many people pronounce it phoenetically and how many say it vee-logging. I think we can all agree that a much more hideous word (although a raging awesome concept) is glogging http://wearcam.org/glogs.htm. (I don't mind telling you that I almost peed my pants with glee when I found out I may be able to get my hands on an Eyetap http://www.eyetap.org/ and join the cyborg logging weirdos.) Nox On 12/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the age old question of terminology, I think vlogging and vloggers stuck. Surprisingly, even the regular You-Tube people identify with vlogging. -- Vox Noxi (blog) -- noxdineen.vox.com The Blair Bitch Project (vlog) -- www.blairbitchproject.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] vlog
The vlogger is defined by a style The addition of the styles makes the vlogging. The others post videos on Internet ( omho) Loiez Le 9 déc. 06 à 17:27, Mike Hudack a écrit : This is exactly why we've started using the word shows at blip. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nox Dineen Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:11 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] vlog Given the amazing breadth in the scope of what's produced under the name of vlogging I'd have to agree with you. It generates an expectation of merely a multimedia blog. Plus, as an admitted linguaphile, I just hate the word. I'm curious, though, how many people pronounce it phoenetically and how many say it vee-logging. I think we can all agree that a much more hideous word (although a raging awesome concept) is glogging http://wearcam.org/glogs.htm. (I don't mind telling you that I almost peed my pants with glee when I found out I may be able to get my hands on an Eyetap http://www.eyetap.org/ and join the cyborg logging weirdos.) Nox On 12/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the age old question of terminology, I think vlogging and vloggers stuck. Surprisingly, even the regular You-Tube people identify with vlogging. -- Vox Noxi (blog) -- noxdineen.vox.com The Blair Bitch Project (vlog) -- www.blairbitchproject.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] vlog
When someone engages in the regular activity of posting online video, be it aimless, their own show or their own favorite links, in each case, its a an ongoing log of videos. YouTube (which uses the word 'vlog' in their interface), Blip and many other blog software packs are content management systems for logging data, be it text, images, video or whatever. Video specific sites like Youtube and Blip are designed specifically for the activity of logging video, or, vlogging. Drew On Dec 9, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Loiez D. wrote: The vlogger is defined by a style The addition of the styles makes the vlogging. The others post videos on Internet ( omho) Loiez Le 9 déc. 06 à 17:27, Mike Hudack a écrit : This is exactly why we've started using the word shows at blip. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nox Dineen Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:11 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] vlog Given the amazing breadth in the scope of what's produced under the name of vlogging I'd have to agree with you. It generates an expectation of merely a multimedia blog. Plus, as an admitted linguaphile, I just hate the word. I'm curious, though, how many people pronounce it phoenetically and how many say it vee-logging. I think we can all agree that a much more hideous word (although a raging awesome concept) is glogging http://wearcam.org/glogs.htm. (I don't mind telling you that I almost peed my pants with glee when I found out I may be able to get my hands on an Eyetap http://www.eyetap.org/ and join the cyborg logging weirdos.) Nox On 12/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the age old question of terminology, I think vlogging and vloggers stuck. Surprisingly, even the regular You-Tube people identify with vlogging. -- Vox Noxi (blog) -- noxdineen.vox.com The Blair Bitch Project (vlog) -- www.blairbitchproject.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal
having an intermediary (e.g. google) dilutes their shareholder value, so I think it is in their best interest to look into other ways to get their stuff out there. OTOH, if they do it, maybe they should think about returning the public airwaves they've been using back to the public. (Right. Like that's going to happen.) On 12/9/06, tony.katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fox, Viacom, CBS and NBC are in talks regarding the creation of a YouTube like site. The article link is http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx? type=internetNewsstoryid=2006-12-09T052820Z_01_N09422049_RTRUKOC_0_US- MEDIA-YOUTUBE.xmlsrc=rssrpc=22 Thoughts? Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv -- Ted Tagami Business Development Millions of Us 80 Liberty Ship Way, Suite #5 Sausalito, CA 94965 www.millionsofus.com mobile: 510-684-9773 fax: 415-324-5902 skype: ted_tagami [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal
Personally I think that this is one of the smartest things they could possibly do. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tony.katz Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:32 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal Fox, Viacom, CBS and NBC are in talks regarding the creation of a YouTube like site. The article link is http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx? type=internetNewsstoryid=2006-12-09T052820Z_01_N09422049_RTRU KOC_0_US- MEDIA-YOUTUBE.xmlsrc=rssrpc=22 Thoughts? Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
The vlogger is defined by a style I agree. The vlogging video style with its free hand immediacy and the doable technical side of acquisition, presentation and distribution is what got me excited enough to get started last winter. I don't have to produce a 60 Minutes, Nova or This Old-House to get my ideas and material out there and helping people take care of their older and historic buildings. John Leeke by hammer and hand great works do stand by pen and thought best words are wrought by cam and light he shoots it right www.HistoricHomeWorks.com
Re: [videoblogging] vlog
andrew michael baron wrote: snip Video specific sites like Youtube and Blip are designed specifically for the activity of logging video, or, vlogging. /snip So what they produce is a vlog then, as they are the ones logging the video, what the creators produce is video to be logged and so they are not vloggers and what they produce is not a vlog. Unless... Like what I did at Carnoustie, they are producing a video which logs something, in our case, the run up to The Open 2007; in which case they are vloggers. So, to me, the term only describes a small sub-section of our population. The more diverse the population, the better. Regards, Gary http://www.garyshort.org/ http://www.carnoustiegolflinks.co.uk/vlog/
[videoblogging] Re: vPIP 0.16g Beta (maintenance) released
The HTML code is compatible with prior versions. So there shouldn't be a problem. Let me know otherwise. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has the html code to be added to templates changed? i.e. do I have to redo all the templates? :) Thanks! Jan On 12/8/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: video Playing In Place (vPIP) 0.16g Beta is now available. This is a maintenance release. This release tries to make closing a video somewhat possible on the Safari browser. The Safari browser does not remove a video if it's taken out of the browser page (removed from the DOM tree.) So the video continues to run with the sound audible but the video invisible, even though it's been told to be removed. This problem happens prior to build 420 of Safari. The version of Safari coming out on Leopard OS X should solve this. However on the Safari prior to Leopard, this version of vPIP will reload the web page when the [X Close] button is pressed. This is a partial solution and should hopefully make vPIP more useful on the Safari browser. The installation and usage page is at: http://utilities.cinegage.com/videos-playing-in-place/ About vPIP -- vPIP (video Playing In Place) dynamically embeds a link video after the viewer clicks on the link. Web pages load quickly with just image and text links. Then when the viewer clicks one of the links, it's replaced with the video. Clicking on another link closes the prior video and opens the new one. The supported video (and audio) formats are: * Quicktime o .mov o .mp4 o .mp3 (audio) o .smi or .smil o .3gp * Windows Media o .avi o .wmv o .asf o .wma (audio) * Flash o .swf o .flv I've tested the installation somewhat. Let me know if you see any problems. ;), Enric -===- http://www.cirne.com http://www.cinegage.com -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
I agree with Andrew... Vlog is simply short for video blog. Blog is short for Web log. So which of these words are we debating?... Video: Most people recognize moving pictures, regardless of its contents. Web: This is an obvious given. Log: This is just a list, usually tracked by time. So where could we possibly be confused? Maybe it is the combined word blog? Do people associate the word blog with only personal online journals? If so, I do not share that limited view of blogging. Both blog and vlog plainly define a very general use of the Web. Maybe we should be creating a standard list of video genres? After that, lets build a rating scale. All we then need is two overweight critics. Vloggywood here we come! -Matt http://vlogmap.org (And yes, I have thought about moving to a better domain.) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When someone engages in the regular activity of posting online video, be it aimless, their own show or their own favorite links, in each case, its a an ongoing log of videos. YouTube (which uses the word 'vlog' in their interface), Blip and many other blog software packs are content management systems for logging data, be it text, images, video or whatever. Video specific sites like Youtube and Blip are designed specifically for the activity of logging video, or, vlogging. Drew
[videoblogging] Re: vPIP 0.16g Beta (maintenance) released
Enric, I just tested this on one of my sites and I have to say...AWESOME! Thanks to you and whoever else was involved in the creation of this great and useful code! Adam http://oneeyedview.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The HTML code is compatible with prior versions. So there shouldn't be a problem. Let me know otherwise. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press jannie.jan@ wrote: Has the html code to be added to templates changed? i.e. do I have to redo all the templates? :) Thanks! Jan On 12/8/06, Enric enric@ wrote: video Playing In Place (vPIP) 0.16g Beta is now available. This is a maintenance release. This release tries to make closing a video somewhat possible on the Safari browser. The Safari browser does not remove a video if it's taken out of the browser page (removed from the DOM tree.) So the video continues to run with the sound audible but the video invisible, even though it's been told to be removed. This problem happens prior to build 420 of Safari. The version of Safari coming out on Leopard OS X should solve this. However on the Safari prior to Leopard, this version of vPIP will reload the web page when the [X Close] button is pressed. This is a partial solution and should hopefully make vPIP more useful on the Safari browser. The installation and usage page is at: http://utilities.cinegage.com/videos-playing-in-place/ About vPIP -- vPIP (video Playing In Place) dynamically embeds a link video after the viewer clicks on the link. Web pages load quickly with just image and text links. Then when the viewer clicks one of the links, it's replaced with the video. Clicking on another link closes the prior video and opens the new one. The supported video (and audio) formats are: * Quicktime o .mov o .mp4 o .mp3 (audio) o .smi or .smil o .3gp * Windows Media o .avi o .wmv o .asf o .wma (audio) * Flash o .swf o .flv I've tested the installation somewhat. Let me know if you see any problems. ;), Enric -===- http://www.cirne.com http://www.cinegage.com -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: vPIP 0.16g Beta (maintenance) released
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The HTML code is compatible with prior versions. So there shouldn't be a problem. Let me know otherwise. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan / The Faux Press jannie.jan@ wrote: Has the html code to be added to templates changed? i.e. do I have to redo all the templates? :) Thanks! Jan I am just experimenting with vPIP to get it running on my Joomla! site, so I am new to vPIP and some of terminology. To clarify: Am I supposed to leave my template header and the code in my posts intact and go to the vPIP download link at http://utilities.cinegage.com/downloads/vPIP0.16/vPIP.zip and download vPIP.zip again, unpack it, and then upload it to my host folder, replacing the older version? I have no problem withe the close icon in FF, but on Safari Version 2.0.4 (419.3) -- which I thought was up to date -- the close icon does not show at all and the video image stays on although picture and sound do not run. I would love to get this working on my site! I have gone in to the html and changed the dimensions to 480 by 360. Nice. I just wish I could do it globally in the code generator menu. Stan Hirson http://hestakaup.com
[videoblogging] Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review?
Hello all, I just ran across the Akimbo option on my Blip.tv account. I checked it out and it seems that I'm interested in the Akimbo Player (Mac guy, no deal on the Windows Media Center.) Does anyone here use this? Review? If you do use this, has it increased your viewership? Thanks! Adam http://oneeyedview.com
Re: [videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal
what's funny is that YouTube is supposedly to Broadcast Yourself. however, they are shifting into MSM which has nothing to do with their tagline. i wonder how many more users will feel used. you might be right, mike. but maybe not. since the talks are about MSM and not so much about user-generated content... lets consider that aspect. on the tube in your family room, you surf to different channels to watch the shows that you like. why cant the same apply to the web? shouldnt each conglomerate's line-up of quality programming still command their traffic/ratings/revenue? if one site has a show i really enjoy, i would go to it. i might not have a choice. if i did, its probably a copyright violation on the other site. legal actions against these other sites will get more aggressive too. but lets say a bunch of these companies do join up to create a hub. lets say they now get more traffic then YouTube. do they win? they would have to share the ad revenue etc because its a shared hub. what do they win? bragging rights that they pushed YouTube down a slot on the top 10 online destinations? I think that if the focus stays on creating quality MSM and distributing it on the net people will go to it (if they like it). Just like at home with your TV. this might be about not fully understanding the game and the competition. now if they are talking about making another Broadcast Yourself service i dont know... that still might not make much sense to me... but it wouldnt be quite as senseless. Mike, can you ellaborate? Maybe you can change my perspective on this. sull On 12/9/06, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I think that this is one of the smartest things they could possibly do. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tony.katz Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:32 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] From the Wall Street Journal Fox, Viacom, CBS and NBC are in talks regarding the creation of a YouTube like site. The article link is http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx? type=internetNewsstoryid=2006-12-09T052820Z_01_N09422049_RTRU KOC_0_US- MEDIA-YOUTUBE.xmlsrc=rssrpc=22 Thoughts? Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv Yahoo! Groups Links -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review?
Hey Adam, There's a double-gateway thing going on there. You don't actually end up on Akimbo until both bilp and Akimbo go ahead and do it. We're just rolling out the first half dozen shows or so right now. We don't like the idea of there being gatekeepers for these kinds of things, but it was the only way Akimbo would do the deal. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of awarner20 Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:45 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review? Hello all, I just ran across the Akimbo option on my Blip.tv account. I checked it out and it seems that I'm interested in the Akimbo Player (Mac guy, no deal on the Windows Media Center.) Does anyone here use this? Review? If you do use this, has it increased your viewership? Thanks! Adam http://oneeyedview.com Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Media RSS what?
The Onion is a classic example of a big site using Drupal. The site is currently in the top 2000 sites on Alexa's traffic ranking. http://www.theonion.com/ More Drupal sites are listed here... http://www.drupalsites.net/ By no means do I universally recommend Drupal, however, it is a very good option for those stuck between Blogger/WordPress and building a custom system. As mentioned before, Joomla is another option. Not sure what you are suggesting Mike, other than don't use Drupal. Do you not like CMSes, or are you suggesting custom systems? If a person has the programming skills to build a custom system, I highly recommend they at least look at Drupal first. Rather than building systems from the ground up for each project, Drupal provides a common foundation with a lot of module functionality. The CCK and Views modules make things very fast, flexible and easy. Themeing and adding new modules is probably the biggest hurdle, but it is very flexible once you get past the learning curve. Anyways, this is all just a suggestion. Personally, I don't like Joomla. It may be more visually appealing out-of-the-box, but the code framework is messy compared to Drupal. Feel free to email me offlist if you want to talk more. -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Peter Van Dijck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can think of -- off the top of my head -- at least five projects that either failed or were significantly damaged because of their choice of Drupal as their CMS I can think of 3 that I know of personally. So yes, Drupal considered dangerous for startups is probably a fair warning. But it's not really meant for startups. Or it shouldn't be. I also know of a few social sites that use it successfully and have loads of users. But they've been around, they are not startups really. Peter On 12/6/06, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, it was uncharacteristicallyharsh, it's true. But I stand by my statement. I can think of -- off the top of my head -- at least five projects that either failed or were significantly damaged because of their choice of Drupal as their CMS. Drupal looks great. It looks like it has everything that you need to start a significantly powerful social Web site out of the box, and it looks like it's significantly extensible such that you can add new functionality easily. It even looks like it scales. Well, the features that it does have were designed by software developers without end users in mind. Its code is poorly documented spaghetti that has gotten more programmers into trouble (and nasty back-end rats nests of code bases) than I care to count. And it doesn't scale. I've had more than a couple late-night beer-fueled sessions where CTOs and directors of development cry on my shoulder about their decisions to use Drupal. So, like I say, I think we'd be better off without it. Drupal is like a Siren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren). Yours, Mike -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sull Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:19 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Media RSS what? lol. i suppose, yeah. kinda harsh, even if you're not a fan of drupal. if you dont use it or like it, no harm done. many people do like it and *know* how to use it well. better to have it exist than not ;) sull On 12/5/06, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] mike%40blip.tv wrote: You ask because you think that's a crzy thing to say? - Original Message - From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue Dec 05 21:05:49 2006 Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Media RSS what? are you at a bar drinking beers? On 12/5/06, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] mike%40blip.tvmike%40blip.tv wrote: The sooner Drupal goes away the better off we all are. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups. comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.comgroups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006
[videoblogging] Re: Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review?
Oh, that's cool with me. I wasn't really interested in making my vlog available on Akimbo, but it would be nice for them to offer all vlog subscriptions in the futureI suppose there has to be some kind of approval though...I'm sure Blip and Akimbo wouldn't want every joker with an RSS feed to made available automatically. Of course, what if I wanted to subscribe to an RSS feed of my choice and then have those downloaded through Akimbo? Anyway, my original question had to do with the Akimbo end-user expierence. I wondered if anyone here had it, and if so, do they like it? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Adam, There's a double-gateway thing going on there. You don't actually end up on Akimbo until both bilp and Akimbo go ahead and do it. We're just rolling out the first half dozen shows or so right now. We don't like the idea of there being gatekeepers for these kinds of things, but it was the only way Akimbo would do the deal. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of awarner20 Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:45 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review? Hello all, I just ran across the Akimbo option on my Blip.tv account. I checked it out and it seems that I'm interested in the Akimbo Player (Mac guy, no deal on the Windows Media Center.) Does anyone here use this? Review? If you do use this, has it increased your viewership? Thanks! Adam http://oneeyedview.com Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review?
I don't personally have an Akimbo set-top box, but I did play with one extensively at the Akimbo offices in the valley. I found the experience to be incredibly fantastic. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of awarner20 Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 2:19 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review? Oh, that's cool with me. I wasn't really interested in making my vlog available on Akimbo, but it would be nice for them to offer all vlog subscriptions in the futureI suppose there has to be some kind of approval though...I'm sure Blip and Akimbo wouldn't want every joker with an RSS feed to made available automatically. Of course, what if I wanted to subscribe to an RSS feed of my choice and then have those downloaded through Akimbo? Anyway, my original question had to do with the Akimbo end-user expierence. I wondered if anyone here had it, and if so, do they like it? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Adam, There's a double-gateway thing going on there. You don't actually end up on Akimbo until both bilp and Akimbo go ahead and do it. We're just rolling out the first half dozen shows or so right now. We don't like the idea of there being gatekeepers for these kinds of things, but it was the only way Akimbo would do the deal. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of awarner20 Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:45 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review? Hello all, I just ran across the Akimbo option on my Blip.tv account. I checked it out and it seems that I'm interested in the Akimbo Player (Mac guy, no deal on the Windows Media Center.) Does anyone here use this? Review? If you do use this, has it increased your viewership? Thanks! Adam http://oneeyedview.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re: [videoblogging] Paul Knight's Interview on the BBC
Such a turnaround, and s fast you made it happen Paul. Way to go! Aloha, Rox On 12/8/06, CarLBanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was REALLY good Paul! I can't wait to goto the movie theater and see Space: The MOVIE! On 12/8/06, Loiez D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great Paul ! Thx for your work But where is the cat now ? Amitiés Loiez shameless promo: An interview of Rosangela Renno actually on my vlog (translate in english) Rosangela Renno is one of the best artist in Brasil ( OMHO) http://xi-vlog.loiez.org/2006/12/respect_.php End of the shameless promo Le 8 déc. 06 à 17:40, Paul Knight a écrit : Hi guys, As many of you know, I was interviewed on the Morning Programme by John Holmes on BBC Radio Nottingham on the 7th December 2006, they gave me rights to video it and I have made the thing available for all to download or at least watch. http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions-PaulTheBBCAuntiesPlace117.mov http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions- paulTheBBCAuntiesPlacePart2403.mov http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions- paulTheBBCAuntiesPlacePart2403.mov Please enjoy and pass comment. It's also available on my site too, if you should be passing. Also for some reason these downloads can't be played on ipods, but I am sure you know how to convert them if you want to watch them on the way to work. Paul Knight [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian 808-384-5554 http://www.beachwalks.tv http://www.barefeetshop.com http://www.barefeetstudios.com http://www.inthetransition.com
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Loiez D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The vlogger is defined by a style The addition of the styles makes the vlogging. The others post videos on Internet ( omho) Loiez Le 9 déc. 06 à 17:27, Mike Hudack a écrit : This is exactly why we've started using the word shows at blip. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nox Dineen Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:11 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] vlog Given the amazing breadth in the scope of what's produced under the name of vlogging I'd have to agree with you. It generates an expectation of merely a multimedia blog. Plus, as an admitted linguaphile, I just hate the word. I'm curious, though, how many people pronounce it phoenetically and how many say it vee-logging. I think we can all agree that a much more hideous word (although a raging awesome concept) is glogging http://wearcam.org/glogs.htm. (I don't mind telling you that I almost peed my pants with glee when I found out I may be able to get my hands on an Eyetap http://www.eyetap.org/ and join the cyborg logging weirdos.) Nox On 12/8/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the age old question of terminology, I think vlogging and vloggers stuck. Surprisingly, even the regular You-Tube people identify with vlogging. -- Vox Noxi (blog) -- noxdineen.vox.com The Blair Bitch Project (vlog) -- www.blairbitchproject.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] flash meeting sorry I am a bit late advertising
well its on now and for the next 2 hours http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/c0f625-6683 come along hope you can join in Paul Knight
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
How is my archive page a video web log? It's a page that links to videos I've created and posted on my site. As I own my site, I am the one to define what it is. I dont see myself as a vlogger. If you want to call me one then that's your prerogative I guess. Personally, I can't stand the word. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Matt Savarino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
You are also a human, like it or not. And you can call it what you want but its a website you are talking about when you say 'my site'. You could take your site off the web but right now its there and that's what it is. You vlogger, you. :P On Dec 9, 2006, at 3:56 PM, David Howell wrote: How is my archive page a video web log? It's a page that links to videos I've created and posted on my site. As I own my site, I am the one to define what it is. I dont see myself as a vlogger. If you want to call me one then that's your prerogative I guess. Personally, I can't stand the word. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Matt Savarino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You vlogger, you. :P That was just plain mean. *dammit* :P So, ok...let me get this straight. Is there is a push to define all websites with video content on them as a vlog and the creator/s of the site are vloggers? Or, are there certain and specific requirements that dictate that one site is a vlog and one site is a website with video? Maybe, I joined the wrong Yahoo group? Does anyone know if there is a Yahoo group for web video content creators? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
I feel like I'm eavesdropping at a mid-90s meeting of the College Democrats. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Howell Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: vlog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You vlogger, you. :P That was just plain mean. *dammit* :P So, ok...let me get this straight. Is there is a push to define all websites with video content on them as a vlog and the creator/s of the site are vloggers? Or, are there certain and specific requirements that dictate that one site is a vlog and one site is a website with video? Maybe, I joined the wrong Yahoo group? Does anyone know if there is a Yahoo group for web video content creators? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
Spirit of vlogging In my (old) experience i could say that vlogging is only a spirit In France nobody use these word They said podcasting or Video blog For me Vlogging is : BliptTV International conversation Josh Wolf Think different Paul, Bil, Mickael, Mike, Jan A new way each day Keep rockin' Peace, love and water for all Loiez Great Karaoké flashmeeting tonight ;-) (that's vlogging) Le 9 déc. 06 à 22:47, David Howell a écrit : --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You vlogger, you. :P That was just plain mean. *dammit* :P So, ok...let me get this straight. Is there is a push to define all websites with video content on them as a vlog and the creator/s of the site are vloggers? Or, are there certain and specific requirements that dictate that one site is a vlog and one site is a website with video? Maybe, I joined the wrong Yahoo group? Does anyone know if there is a Yahoo group for web video content creators? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Akimbo...does anyone use this? Can you offer a review?
You know I've got to say. This whole Akimbo thing is antithetical to the whole point of videoblogging. I'd never by an akimbo box because I can't subscribe to my friends videoblogs on it. Vlogs are not shows. No random akimbo user is going to just say, oh I want to see the mike meiser show. There going to say I want to watch my friend bob's and jane, and jill's vlogs on my akimbo... and the answer is... nope sorry. It's bankrupt, pointless, and it completely need not be. I'd never by one and I'm willing to bet no one on this group has ever bought them with the idea of watching vlogs... since there's what a half dozen options. This is the same dilema that faces cell phone carriers. They all want to be cable operators and broker exclusive deals for every piece of content that comes across this platform, but this isn't the cable paradigm, it's the internet paradigm. It makes about as much sense buying an Akimbo that plays only vlogs they approve as it would make to buy an iPod that didn't play mp3's but only music from the apple music store. I realize that cable is f'd up backwards, but why oh why can't people get this. They make hardware for craps sake! They need to sell hardware! You make your hardware relevent by making it play as much crap as possible... even if you think it's crap... it's what your users want. Heh, Akimbo, my friend bob has 3 viewers, and I'm one of them, I want to watch it on the Akimbo, what's the deal yo! Anyway, I'm preaching to the choir. Perhaps I should talk to them. Anyone got a contact there? I've talked to a half dozen set top box managers, they all ask the same question. Who's going to be the editor, who's going to keep the porn out, who's going, to approve the content. How do the content makers get paid. Look your a damn freaking media player, you're not a cable network, your a commodity hardware player. You're behaving like Sony did with their A-trac player oh never heard of that!? Well that's because it was sony's attempt at an iPod but it didn't play anything sony didn't approve for it. Sony offers Britney Spears... I want the Dropkick murphy's guess I'm SOL... No, noone in their right mind would buy such a device to listen to music, and noone would buy and akimbo to watch akimbo's approved selection of vlogs. It sounds exactly like Gootube's deal with Verizon to deliver a selection of youtube to cell phone. Except atleast gootube has a huge market. Who's going to pay $15 a month to NOT watch any of their friends youtube videos, but whatever google and verizon decide to make available. How may people will pa $15 a month to watch viral crap... there's only so many videos one can watch of people getting kicked in the balls before they'll get bored. So, no offense to steve garfield, beach walks with rocks and rocketboom, but who the hell is going to buy akimbo to watch them. And you could say it's just 'added value not akimbo's main point of business. But WTF, it makes about as much business sense to offer a half dozen vlogs, or even four dozen vlogs. Was it really worth their time and effort in overhead to make these exclusive partnerships with vlogs? I HIGHLY doubt it. It's been over a year, maybe two since akimbo first played a vlog. The honeymoon period is over. It's time for Akimbo to shit or get off the pot. It's got to be everything or it mine as well be nothing. I'm not being mean, I'm being pragmatic and honest. I say the idea of akimbo is bankrupt, because it is, they're wasting everyone's time and money with this approach and I can't even understand why blip is bothering to waste anytime at all in partnering with Akimbo untill they support everyone's vlog. I mean, raise your hand if you love blip and are an uber blip fan? Mine is raised, Anyone else? Now raise you're hand if you'll EVER buy an Akimbo to watch select blip vlogs. Akimbo needs to support EVERY blip user's vlog, and it needs to support EVERY vlog... or as many as it technically can. But if I'm correct these road blocks are not technical, they're beuracratic and editorial. Of the set top manufacturers I've talked to they're starting to get the idea that in order for their platforms to be valueable their USERS will need to be able to choose what they want to watch, and the new expectation is that will be anything on the net. So, does Akimbo they still just support mpeg1?They just need to get a minimal of mp4 support like the N Series nokias, the iPod, and the PSP to get a start. If they can do MOV, and WMV all the better, but unecissary. Speaking of which. Does the Akimbo support mp3? The Akimbo could make a GREAT podcatcher, Which is to say it could make a GREAT aggregator/ player of audio podcasts. There's absolutely no theoretical reason why I can't walk into my house hit the power button on the TV and scroll through a list of the absolute latest podcasts from my favorite subscriptions and just hit play. But there are over 100 thousand podcasts... is
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
This is way too organized for a mid 90's meeting of college Democrats. (please send all hate mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I still haven't figured out why it would ever matter to me if someone referred to it as a video blog, a vlog or a show. And I think that personal connection (as in the comment my site in an earlier post) has a lot to do with this constant discussion. How does the individual classify him or herself and how does the end viewer classify him or her? Does it do someone harm to be referred to as a vlogger? As a video content producer? As a enter your name of choice here? Does it somehow enhance the experience or bring someone more cache to be called a vlogger, or content producer, et.al? Again, hate mail goes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Non hate mail goes there as well. Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel like I'm eavesdropping at a mid-90s meeting of the College Democrats. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Howell Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: vlog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: You vlogger, you. :P That was just plain mean. *dammit* :P So, ok...let me get this straight. Is there is a push to define all websites with video content on them as a vlog and the creator/s of the site are vloggers? Or, are there certain and specific requirements that dictate that one site is a vlog and one site is a website with video? Maybe, I joined the wrong Yahoo group? Does anyone know if there is a Yahoo group for web video content creators? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
this is silly; who cares what you call it. it's what you are doing with it, i.e., the content that matters- not the denotation of website or vlog or blog.rather than expensing this time philosophizing nonsense take a note from Jay Ryanne Deidre to use this medium (regardless of what it's called) to expose and promote causes, predicaments, whatever it is in the world. they are a few of my favorite people on the internet and it's not because they're vloggers or bloggers but rather because they're consistent content providers of interesting media. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:06:05 -0500Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog You are also a human, like it or not. And you can call it what you want but its a website you are talking about when you say 'my site'. You could take your site off the web but right now its there and that's what it is. You vlogger, you. :P On Dec 9, 2006, at 3:56 PM, David Howell wrote: How is my archive page a video web log? It's a page that links to videos I've created and posted on my site. As I own my site, I am the one to define what it is. I dont see myself as a vlogger. If you want to call me one then that's your prerogative I guess. Personally, I can't stand the word. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Matt Savarino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _ Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Paul Knight's Interview on the BBC
I'm fanning myself, I am s happy for you. I just watched all three of the videos. You did good kid. I am a big fan of people who take an assumed negative and make a fantastic positive out a situation. Lemme see, first BBC Nottingham and then BBC World Service...hmmm. Not sure how Rachel is gonna make a positive out of a green wall in the kitchen but I'm sure she will find away. Each one, teach one Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, As many of you know, I was interviewed on the Morning Programme by John Holmes on BBC Radio Nottingham on the 7th December 2006, they gave me rights to video it and I have made the thing available for all to download or at least watch. http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions-PaulTheBBCAuntiesPlace117.mov http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions- paulTheBBCAuntiesPlacePart2403.mov http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions- paulTheBBCAuntiesPlacePart2403.mov Please enjoy and pass comment. It's also available on my site too, if you should be passing. Also for some reason these downloads can't be played on ipods, but I am sure you know how to convert them if you want to watch them on the way to work. Paul Knight
Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
It matters because... Already lots of folks have got their minds around 'vlogging' 'videoblogging' 'vee-logging' and say the words. They are not particularly beautiful in the mouth. Nor are they terribly catchy or descriptive to the uninitiated. I blame 'blogging'. I blame 'podcasting'. I blame 'video'. All blamed for not having thought well about what they called these activities. We are left with speaking the typing the ugly results. Where are the nomenclators? Does changing the time-based nature of the activity change its 'blog' nature? Time-based syndication has changed with the advent of FeedCycle - http://www.feedcycle.com/feed/10104/ You can tell your stories now with a bit more control. Jan On 12/9/06, Obreahny O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is silly; who cares what you call it. it's what you are doing with it, i.e., the content that matters- not the denotation of website or vlog or blog.rather than expensing this time philosophizing nonsense take a note from Jay Ryanne Deidre to use this medium (regardless of what it's called) to expose and promote causes, predicaments, whatever it is in the world. they are a few of my favorite people on the internet and it's not because they're vloggers or bloggers but rather because they're consistent content providers of interesting media. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] andrew%40rocketboom.comDate: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:06:05 -0500Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog You are also a human, like it or not. And you can call it what you want but its a website you are talking about when you say 'my site'. You could take your site off the web but right now its there and that's what it is. You vlogger, you. :P On Dec 9, 2006, at 3:56 PM, David Howell wrote: How is my archive page a video web log? It's a page that links to videos I've created and posted on my site. As I own my site, I am the one to define what it is. I dont see myself as a vlogger. If you want to call me one then that's your prerogative I guess. Personally, I can't stand the word. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Matt Savarino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
I can't say my site because a lot of my videos now are produced by more than just me! On 12/9/06, Obreahny O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is silly; who cares what you call it. it's what you are doing with it, i.e., the content that matters- not the denotation of website or vlog or blog.rather than expensing this time philosophizing nonsense take a note from Jay Ryanne Deidre to use this medium (regardless of what it's called) to expose and promote causes, predicaments, whatever it is in the world. they are a few of my favorite people on the internet and it's not because they're vloggers or bloggers but rather because they're consistent content providers of interesting media. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] andrew%40rocketboom.comDate: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:06:05 -0500Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog You are also a human, like it or not. And you can call it what you want but its a website you are talking about when you say 'my site'. You could take your site off the web but right now its there and that's what it is. You vlogger, you. :P On Dec 9, 2006, at 3:56 PM, David Howell wrote: How is my archive page a video web log? It's a page that links to videos I've created and posted on my site. As I own my site, I am the one to define what it is. I dont see myself as a vlogger. If you want to call me one then that's your prerogative I guess. Personally, I can't stand the word. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Matt Savarino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __ Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Re: [videoblogging] Paul Knight's Interview on the BBC
Again. It rulez, thanks paul. -Mike On 12/9/06, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Such a turnaround, and s fast you made it happen Paul. Way to go! Aloha, Rox On 12/8/06, CarLBanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was REALLY good Paul! I can't wait to goto the movie theater and see Space: The MOVIE! On 12/8/06, Loiez D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great Paul ! Thx for your work But where is the cat now ? Amitiés Loiez shameless promo: An interview of Rosangela Renno actually on my vlog (translate in english) Rosangela Renno is one of the best artist in Brasil ( OMHO) http://xi-vlog.loiez.org/2006/12/respect_.php End of the shameless promo Le 8 déc. 06 à 17:40, Paul Knight a écrit : Hi guys, As many of you know, I was interviewed on the Morning Programme by John Holmes on BBC Radio Nottingham on the 7th December 2006, they gave me rights to video it and I have made the thing available for all to download or at least watch. http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions-PaulTheBBCAuntiesPlace117.mov http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions- paulTheBBCAuntiesPlacePart2403.mov http://blip.tv/file/get/Pjkproductions- paulTheBBCAuntiesPlacePart2403.mov Please enjoy and pass comment. It's also available on my site too, if you should be passing. Also for some reason these downloads can't be played on ipods, but I am sure you know how to convert them if you want to watch them on the way to work. Paul Knight [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian 808-384-5554 http://www.beachwalks.tv http://www.barefeetshop.com http://www.barefeetstudios.com http://www.inthetransition.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog
I have no problem with calling what's happening on youtube video bloging. Great, awesome. I'm just glad there's a thing called a video podcast to distinguish between what youtube is doing in it's own closed and proprietary world and that which is compatible with software and hardware other than a web browser. This is to say, I'm glad that Apple and others major players have embraced a truely open medium and not simply youtube's proprietary version of it, and that this world is truely open and diametrically oppoesed to youtube. Given it's success I would hope that one day youtube will be forced to open up it's media, provide downloadable formats and a whole nother level of openness and accessibility. I think while the initial power of youtube may be fine and dandy, that increasingly the real power is in video podcasting... a *real* open access medium. Not some half measure. As more and more hardware like cell phones, wifi networked media players and set top boxes started coming out that support downloadable and aggregateable video I think hope this will undermine youtube's dominance and force it to change to compete. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 12/9/06, Obreahny O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is silly; who cares what you call it. it's what you are doing with it, i.e., the content that matters- not the denotation of website or vlog or blog.rather than expensing this time philosophizing nonsense take a note from Jay Ryanne Deidre to use this medium (regardless of what it's called) to expose and promote causes, predicaments, whatever it is in the world. they are a few of my favorite people on the internet and it's not because they're vloggers or bloggers but rather because they're consistent content providers of interesting media. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:06:05 -0500Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: vlog You are also a human, like it or not. And you can call it what you want but its a website you are talking about when you say 'my site'. You could take your site off the web but right now its there and that's what it is. You vlogger, you. :P On Dec 9, 2006, at 3:56 PM, David Howell wrote: How is my archive page a video web log? It's a page that links to videos I've created and posted on my site. As I own my site, I am the one to define what it is. I dont see myself as a vlogger. If you want to call me one then that's your prerogative I guess. Personally, I can't stand the word. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Matt Savarino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your goal and/or style should not define the generic word vlog. From a viewer's point of view, this is a video Web log... http://www.davidhowellstudios.com/archive/ I'd then call you a vlogger since you are the creator. It that considered a bad thing now? -Matt http://vlogmap.org --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I agree. I dont think of my site as a vlog. It's a website that I post video on. There is no style to my videos or the manner in which I shoot them. Thus, I am very pleased to not call myself a vlogger. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _ Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1loc=us [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Trying to understand compression
Okay, any advice on this would be helpful as I'm trying to get over the compression hump. I was told that I should be uploading my vids in the mpeg4 format but I'm still a bit confused on whether I'm doing this correctly. I want to be able to submit my videos to the various directories like blip.tv and at same time they should be itunes compatible. I shot a video and did the editing in Sony Movie studio 4 and saved as an .avi file. I then opened QT Pro and exported as 'movie to QT movie' compression = mp4 quality = high Frame rate =15 key frame = 5 data rate = 700 size 320x240 In the sound I was forced to choose 44,100? 22,100 was greyed out. then I chose mono, and format of AAC with target bit rate 128 Now that came out pretty good but I'm getting confused on the next compression that I did. I exported same .avi file in QT Pro but this time I chose: Movie to Mp4 Format = H.264 data rate = 550 Optimized for 'streaming' size = 320x 240 Frame rate = 30 keyframe = 24 baseline best quality = multi pass audio= aac 128 stereo 44.100 coding= better Now this video came out a bit smaller in size but you can see some sections that have a 'blurriness' to it. I was told that H.264 was the best encoder but didn't look as good as the first one I did. Aren't both these still considered mp4? I really appreciate the help I've been getting in ths group and luckily...it's all starting to make more sense. Tobey
[videoblogging] Re: vlog
It matters to me. The words I choose to use are what defines who I am. Should you choose that it does not matter what words are used to define you, that is unfortunate and sad. However, that is your choice. I am what I choose to be. I am not defined by what others select to call me. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, tony.katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is way too organized for a mid 90's meeting of college Democrats. (please send all hate mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I still haven't figured out why it would ever matter to me if someone referred to it as a video blog, a vlog or a show. And I think that personal connection (as in the comment my site in an earlier post) has a lot to do with this constant discussion. How does the individual classify him or herself and how does the end viewer classify him or her? Does it do someone harm to be referred to as a vlogger? As a video content producer? As a enter your name of choice here? Does it somehow enhance the experience or bring someone more cache to be called a vlogger, or content producer, et.al? Again, hate mail goes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Non hate mail goes there as well. Tony Katz http://www.talkshowonthego.com http://www.vnetworks.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack mike@ wrote: I feel like I'm eavesdropping at a mid-90s meeting of the College Democrats. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Howell Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 4:48 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: vlog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: You vlogger, you. :P That was just plain mean. *dammit* :P So, ok...let me get this straight. Is there is a push to define all websites with video content on them as a vlog and the creator/s of the site are vloggers? Or, are there certain and specific requirements that dictate that one site is a vlog and one site is a website with video? Maybe, I joined the wrong Yahoo group? Does anyone know if there is a Yahoo group for web video content creators? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Trying to understand compression
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, heytobey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I then opened QT Pro and exported as 'movie to QT movie' Frame rate =15 key frame = 5 I exported same .avi file in QT Pro but this time I chose: Movie to Mp4 Frame rate = 30 keyframe = 24 Now this video came out a bit smaller in size but you can see some sections that have a 'blurriness' to it. Tobey The number next to key frame stands for create a key frame every [number] frames. In your first video, you made a key frame every 5 out of 15 frames. In the second one, you made one every 24 out of 30 frames. In both cases, frames stands for frames per second, so in the first video, you were making three key frames per second, and in the second one, you were barely making ONE key frame per second. Basically, let's say that key frames are 'definite' frames, and the frames in between them are interpretations from those key frames, and not their own stand alone frames. This means that in the first video, you made one key frame and four interpretations, then repeated. In the second video, you made one key frame, then 23 interpretations, then repeated. Video 1:KKK every second. Video 2: KiiKii every second. Your H.264 looked blurry to you because the computer was 'guessing' at the i-frames instead of creating stand alone frames. Also, any time you change scenes in between key frames, the computer's REALLY not going to know what to make of it. Your solution is to decrease the number next to key frames, which actually _increases_ the number of key frames that you create per second. Also, since you chose 30 frames instead of 15 frames, not only were you making more 'guessing' for the computer by having all those i-frames in a row, but you doubled the amount of frames that the computer had to compress into your data rate. H.264 looks much nicer than Mpeg-4 at the same data rate, so it would have made up for the difference in this case, but if you had used the same codec, you would have been able to see the difference. -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Al online viewing booms, the amateurs give way to big media
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An interesting article from the online viewer perspective http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16154786.htm So that's why no one is watchingI'm not consistant or compelling an old prediction stays true. In the 50s there were 3 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 60s there were 5 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 70s there were 21 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 80s there were 368 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 90s there were 2319 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 00s there are 1,283,381 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 10s there will be 17,281,217 channels to watch and nothing on. you are all new channels, remember to brand them. at least when there's nothing on you'll remember where you're watching it. there's nothing on, yet the number of average hours people spend watching a screen has increased steadily since 1920. what are they watching? something.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Al online viewing booms, the amateurs give way to big media
I like the way you think Robert. But you missed two things. 1) You missed 57 channels and nothing on, so said bruce springstien 2) your model has a small problem. It can't continue on inifinitely. Doh! LOL But far from being broke is when there are as many channels as there are people... When everyone has a voice, wow, that'd be a crazy cool thing. Of course people could have more than one channel, but I'm going to ignore that possibility for now. The point is that the ineventuality is everyone will have a voice. A complete theoretical of course, impractical, but theoretically possible. Just like the prospect of world literacy. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 12/10/06, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An interesting article from the online viewer perspective http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16154786.htm So that's why no one is watchingI'm not consistant or compelling an old prediction stays true. In the 50s there were 3 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 60s there were 5 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 70s there were 21 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 80s there were 368 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 90s there were 2319 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 00s there are 1,283,381 channels to watch and nothing on. In the 10s there will be 17,281,217 channels to watch and nothing on. you are all new channels, remember to brand them. at least when there's nothing on you'll remember where you're watching it. there's nothing on, yet the number of average hours people spend watching a screen has increased steadily since 1920. what are they watching? something. Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
