Re: [videoblogging] Re: Affordable Video Lights

[WWWhatsup]

>

The J&R surplus store has LED closet and undershelf lights for under $20.

Add diffusion gels and they're great and v.portable.

joly

(who splashed out $450 for a vidled and doesn't regret it.)


---
 WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
--- 

[videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player

[bestdamntechshow]

I've had similar experiences with blip.  They're awesome and always
available to help in any way they can.

We're lucky folks to have them around.

_drew

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, eric gunnar rochow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> i think, by and large, that blip.tv has done well in the first  
> rollout of their ShowPlayer.
> 
> gardenfork has become less and less a blog and more of what i call an  
> internet video show. gardenfork's audience is mainly people who watch  
> DIY-gardening-cooking shows on cable, and for some reason have run  
> across gardenfork.tv . they don't get the blog format ( meaning they  
> have to scroll down to watch older episodes) , nor do they know what  
> an RSS feed is.
> 
> blip.tv's ShowPlayer works well for gardenfork. previously we ran the  
> brightcove player, but the company behind it was not nearly as pro- 
> active as blip is in our world here. i emailed blip 3 times today,  
> and heard back within an hour each time. this from a company  
> comprised of about 8 people.
> 
> the initial rollout of any software has some bumps in the road.
> 
> thx, eric.
> 
> http://gardenfork.tv
>

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[wazman_au]

Bill, it all depends on the speed of your internet connection, now doesn't it?

The fact is I _am_ concerned about file size, and the bandwidth consumption 
imposed on 
viewers. And I also want to have control over the parameters of an exported 
file. Whereas 
you don't see the issue. So there's really not much point in me debating this 
with you.

In the end, I want to get our latest episode up, and I'm tired of racking my 
brains and 
Google for a solution - so I might just go with the 120mb "Extorted for iPod" 
file and see 
what the response is.

Waz



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why exactly is it that you're worried about file size?
> 
> If you're talking about a 120mb file, and it's a 10-minute episode,
> it's NOT going to take 10 minutes to download the 120 megs, so there's
> no significant loss in the viewer's quality of experience.
> 
> Are you concerned that the file won't play until it's downloaded? 
> What's the negative issue for the viewer if your files are that size
> for that program length?
> 
> --
> Bill C.
> BillCammack.com
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au"  wrote:
> >
> > Guys guys guys,
> > 
> > Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on
> > your viewers?
> > 
> > Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example?
> > 
> > Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've
> > been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or
> > anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3.
> > 
> > I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and
> > takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity"
> > issue it won't iPod.
> > 
> > There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as
> > changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the
> > parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro.
> > 
> > Waz
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good call, Bill.  That's right along the lines of what I was thinking.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Bill C.
> > > BillCammack.com
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Shackelford"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I
> > > just use iPod .m4v 
> > > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video that
> > > anyone can watch. 
> > > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would
> > > be .mp4 video that 
> > > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to  PSP... but .mp4
> > > videos kinda suck to 
> > > > playback over the web in my opinion. 
> > > > 
> > > > My feed:
> > > > 
> > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod
> > > > 
> > > > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my site
> > > and the enclosures are 
> > > > the .m4v files.
> > > > 
> > > > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been
> > > looking at those.
> > > > 
> > > > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to the feed
> > > > > that works for you.  http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has
> > about 6
> > > > > feeds.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being
> playable on
> > > > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the
> > reasons you
> > > > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator.  I haven't
> > > > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the
> data
> > > > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd
> > make a
> > > > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure it also
> > > > > runs on AppleTV.  You might lose some resolution that way, but
> > if you
> > > > > insist on having only one feed, that's the only way I can see it
> > > > > working.  Again, assuming there IS a LCD that you can encode to.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Bill C.
> > > > > BillCammack.com
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess the assumption would be that your viewers would
> > subscribe to
> > > > > > one feed or the other, depending on which hardware they owned. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Its not ideal but it may be ideal for some viewers, depending
> > on how
> > > > > > fussy they are about getting the best possible qualiy on their
> > > device.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Unfortunately these issues are unlikely to vanish. Because for
> > > all my
> > > > > > evangelising about mpeg4 and h24 standards, this is unlikely
> > to boil
> > > > > > down to one common subset of h264 just so long as theres so much
> > > > > > variation in decoding power b

[videoblogging] Re: Affordable Video Lights

[humancloner1997]

I discovered a variety of screw-on reflectors at a lighting store in
NYC.  They screwed on to the inexpensive "clamp lights" you buy in
stores for $6 or $7.

I replaced the clamp light socket with a dimmer socket so I could
adjust the intensity of the lights.

Through experimentation, I discovered (to my surprise) that the
screw-on reflector shaped like a cone actually threw light the most
evenly.

I had a "bright circle" problem with various bulbs until I tried soft
white bulbs.  There are also "new dawn" bulbs with a light pinkish
tone which can add color.

Two or three of these can light just about anything you want to light.
 The portability of the lights & the ability to turn them up or dim
them down makes getting the correct effect very easy.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
Hoboken, NJ
www.RandyWickerReporting.blogspot.com 


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'm looking for GOOD prices on video lighting. These are for when I
> can setup lights for scenes in my videos. I've been using some
> mutli-directional floor lamps and now want something better.
> 
> Keep in mind: I would prefer not having to spend A TON of money on
> light bulbs since one kit I saw had a 2-3 hour lifespan for the
> lights. I also need this to be affordable!
> 
> Thanks very much!
> 
> -- 
> -Jonathan Bloom
> http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[Bill Cammack]

Why exactly is it that you're worried about file size?

If you're talking about a 120mb file, and it's a 10-minute episode,
it's NOT going to take 10 minutes to download the 120 megs, so there's
no significant loss in the viewer's quality of experience.

Are you concerned that the file won't play until it's downloaded? 
What's the negative issue for the viewer if your files are that size
for that program length?

--
Bill C.
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guys guys guys,
> 
> Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on
> your viewers?
> 
> Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example?
> 
> Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've
> been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or
> anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3.
> 
> I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and
> takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity"
> issue it won't iPod.
> 
> There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as
> changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the
> parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro.
> 
> Waz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Good call, Bill.  That's right along the lines of what I was thinking.
> > 
> > --
> > Bill C.
> > BillCammack.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Shackelford"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I
> > just use iPod .m4v 
> > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video that
> > anyone can watch. 
> > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would
> > be .mp4 video that 
> > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to  PSP... but .mp4
> > videos kinda suck to 
> > > playback over the web in my opinion. 
> > > 
> > > My feed:
> > > 
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod
> > > 
> > > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my site
> > and the enclosures are 
> > > the .m4v files.
> > > 
> > > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been
> > looking at those.
> > > 
> > > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to the feed
> > > > that works for you.  http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has
> about 6
> > > > feeds.
> > > > 
> > > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being
playable on
> > > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the
> reasons you
> > > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator.  I haven't
> > > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the
data
> > > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd
> make a
> > > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure it also
> > > > runs on AppleTV.  You might lose some resolution that way, but
> if you
> > > > insist on having only one feed, that's the only way I can see it
> > > > working.  Again, assuming there IS a LCD that you can encode to.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Bill C.
> > > > BillCammack.com
> > > > 
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess the assumption would be that your viewers would
> subscribe to
> > > > > one feed or the other, depending on which hardware they owned. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Its not ideal but it may be ideal for some viewers, depending
> on how
> > > > > fussy they are about getting the best possible qualiy on their
> > device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unfortunately these issues are unlikely to vanish. Because for
> > all my
> > > > > evangelising about mpeg4 and h24 standards, this is unlikely
> to boil
> > > > > down to one common subset of h264 just so long as theres so much
> > > > > variation in decoding power between devices. Battery life is
a big
> > > > > issue for mobile devices and high-def TV's arent very
forgiving of
> > > > > low-quality/low res footage, so it may get worse. If
high-def web
> > > > > video wasnt so absurdly huge in comparison to what we're
> mostly used
> > > > > to, there would probably be even more confusion and conflicting
> > > > > pressures already.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The jump from 320x240 t 640x480 is quite significant, I know
Apple
> > > > > mailed people advising everyone to change, but theres certainly
> > merit
> > > > > in considering still offering a 320x240 version at this
time. You
> > > > > could for example keep the ipod feed at 320x240 and offer the
> > 640x480
> > > > > version specifically for apple TV. Because Im not sure how
> many ipod
> > > > > people use the TV out, and they might hate the increased
filesizze
> > > > > more t

Re: [videoblogging] Re: New blip.tv show player

[Jen Simmons]

Yeah, someone really needs to invent THE killer ap -- imagine it, and  
it exists. Funny how there's always a gap between those two...

spam :(
blip perfect as it is now :)
blip perfect as it will be :)

j


On Apr 22, 2007, at 4:32 pm, Mike Hudack wrote:

> Jen,
>
> We're definitely moving in this direction, it's just going to take  
> us a
> little while. Because of the way the blip software was originally
> developed it's a big difficult for us. But we do want things to work
> this way in the future, no doubt.
>
> In the meantime, it's in our roadmap to relax the e-mail requirements
> really soon. The one email/show/user requirement was designed to
> prevent spam. We're going to move to requiring a CAPTCHA for signup in
> an upcoming release (hopefully this one coming up in two weeks, maybe
> the one after that) and remove the unique e-mail requirement.
>
> From there we'll definitely be looking at ways to become more
> Blogger-like in the way we handle accounts and shows. It'll probably
> take us a little while, though :(
>
> Yours,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[wazman_au]

Mike,

File size is the clincher. If you guys can find a way of letting the
user tweak bitrate and other params, while still having 640x480 H.264
that works on both Apple Telly and the iPod, you are on a winner.

Waz


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey Waz,
> 
> I'm afraid the secret sauce includes a dozen pages of signed legal
> documents and some custom code :)  not sure what kind of file size we're
> talking...
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:29 PM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Great. How about sharing the secret with those of us who'd like to
> encode the vids ourselves???
> 
> What sort of file size are we talking? Let's talk megabytes per minute
> at 640x480.
> 
> Waz
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack"  wrote:
> >
> > Waz,
> > 
> > Blip pro account holders soon won't have to worry about this :)  We're
> > hoping to have transcoding to an Apple TV + iPod compatible format
> > available for pro users in our next release (about two weeks away).
> > 
> > Yours,
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au
> > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:30 PM
> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [videoblogging] Apple TV and iPod clash
> > 
> > Stupid bloody Apple, why do they DO things like this
> > 
> > Folks, this is a tough one, and yes, I've read through the
> > Casey-initiated thread. Good start 
> > but sadly optimistic.
> > 
> > The question is, how do we pump out vids that are 640x480 and have the
> > "baseline low-
> > complexity" profile, thus being both iPod and (presumably) Apple TV
> > compatible?
> > 
> > Baseline can be selected when exporting with your own settings, but
> the
> > "low-complexity" 
> > sub-option cannot. According to Apple's developer spec, low-complexity
> > has been defined 
> > by Apple for the iPod, and it seems to be restricted to the Export for
> > iPod option, which 
> > cannot be configured.
> > 
> > When exporting an iPod video, QuickTime chooses automatically whether
> to
> > use "baseline" 
> > or "baseline low-complexity" - in a nutshell, anything upwards of
> > 320x240 gets low-
> > complexity. Gory details here:
> > 
> > http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html
> > 
> > Three possible workarounds. I am not in front of QTPro right now so
> will
> > try later:
> > 
> > 1) Use the Export for iPod option with the source vid sized at 640x480
> -
> > this will goad 
> > QTPro into using low-complexity - and then find some way of saving the
> > resulting video 
> > _again_ with a chopped-down bitrate, perhaps by doing a "Save as ..."
> > but without re-
> > encoding. 
> > 
> > 2) Do it the other way round - export at the bitrate etc. that you
> want,
> > then run it through 
> > the iPod export. The developer spec suggests QT iPod exporter using a
> > 640x480 source 
> > file will pick its own bitrate according to a complex formula ("DR = {
> > (nMC * 8 ) / 3 } - 100" 
> > I kid you not, check out the developer link above) between 700 and
> > 1500kbps. But maybe 
> > if the source file is already lower, it won't jump up the bitrate too
> > shockingly. The MC in 
> > the equation stands for "macroblock" and if the number of these can be
> > reduced in the 
> > source file (how? Dunno) then, doing the maths, you are headed for a
> > smaller result.
> > 
> > 3) Resize your source video to 640x480, whack it through Export for
> iPod
> > and hope the 
> > filesize is not too bloated. As in the formula above, this should
> > produce something 
> > between 700kbps and 1500kbps, although Apple doesn't say whether the
> > audio is 
> > included in that bitrate (AAARGH!).   
> > 
> > I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully crafted 640x480
> > recipe with 
> > meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that delivered a file
> > of 5MB/minute that 
> > looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable doesn't work on
> the
> > iPod.
> > 
> > I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove their TV box ...
> and
> > all of the above still 
> > leaves the question unanswered: will the aforementioned oblong
> > suppository PLAY H.264 
> > BASELINE LOW-COMPLEXITY???
> > 
> > Anyone got one of these boxes?
> > 
> > That's all for now. I know none of the above is tested but I thought
> I'd
> > post now while my 
> > blood is up, and to give others the chance to look for a solution.
> > 
> > Waz from Crash Test Kitchen
> > http://www.crashtestkitchen.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[Mike Hudack]

Hey Waz,

I'm afraid the secret sauce includes a dozen pages of signed legal
documents and some custom code :)  not sure what kind of file size we're
talking...

-Original Message-
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:29 PM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

Mike,

Great. How about sharing the secret with those of us who'd like to
encode the vids ourselves???

What sort of file size are we talking? Let's talk megabytes per minute
at 640x480.

Waz

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Waz,
> 
> Blip pro account holders soon won't have to worry about this :)  We're
> hoping to have transcoding to an Apple TV + iPod compatible format
> available for pro users in our next release (about two weeks away).
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:30 PM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Apple TV and iPod clash
> 
> Stupid bloody Apple, why do they DO things like this
> 
> Folks, this is a tough one, and yes, I've read through the
> Casey-initiated thread. Good start 
> but sadly optimistic.
> 
> The question is, how do we pump out vids that are 640x480 and have the
> "baseline low-
> complexity" profile, thus being both iPod and (presumably) Apple TV
> compatible?
> 
> Baseline can be selected when exporting with your own settings, but
the
> "low-complexity" 
> sub-option cannot. According to Apple's developer spec, low-complexity
> has been defined 
> by Apple for the iPod, and it seems to be restricted to the Export for
> iPod option, which 
> cannot be configured.
> 
> When exporting an iPod video, QuickTime chooses automatically whether
to
> use "baseline" 
> or "baseline low-complexity" - in a nutshell, anything upwards of
> 320x240 gets low-
> complexity. Gory details here:
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html
> 
> Three possible workarounds. I am not in front of QTPro right now so
will
> try later:
> 
> 1) Use the Export for iPod option with the source vid sized at 640x480
-
> this will goad 
> QTPro into using low-complexity - and then find some way of saving the
> resulting video 
> _again_ with a chopped-down bitrate, perhaps by doing a "Save as ..."
> but without re-
> encoding. 
> 
> 2) Do it the other way round - export at the bitrate etc. that you
want,
> then run it through 
> the iPod export. The developer spec suggests QT iPod exporter using a
> 640x480 source 
> file will pick its own bitrate according to a complex formula ("DR = {
> (nMC * 8 ) / 3 } - 100" 
> I kid you not, check out the developer link above) between 700 and
> 1500kbps. But maybe 
> if the source file is already lower, it won't jump up the bitrate too
> shockingly. The MC in 
> the equation stands for "macroblock" and if the number of these can be
> reduced in the 
> source file (how? Dunno) then, doing the maths, you are headed for a
> smaller result.
> 
> 3) Resize your source video to 640x480, whack it through Export for
iPod
> and hope the 
> filesize is not too bloated. As in the formula above, this should
> produce something 
> between 700kbps and 1500kbps, although Apple doesn't say whether the
> audio is 
> included in that bitrate (AAARGH!).   
> 
> I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully crafted 640x480
> recipe with 
> meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that delivered a file
> of 5MB/minute that 
> looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable doesn't work on
the
> iPod.
> 
> I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove their TV box ...
and
> all of the above still 
> leaves the question unanswered: will the aforementioned oblong
> suppository PLAY H.264 
> BASELINE LOW-COMPLEXITY???
> 
> Anyone got one of these boxes?
> 
> That's all for now. I know none of the above is tested but I thought
I'd
> post now while my 
> blood is up, and to give others the chance to look for a solution.
> 
> Waz from Crash Test Kitchen
> http://www.crashtestkitchen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[wazman_au]

Hey Steve,

I would not be entirely averse to using another encoder. I have tried
Videora iPod converter in the past with little success, but may give
it another go since there's a new version out.

I would also mess around with ffmpeg if I could find any "for dummies"
documentation - and an executable version of the software too! Hell,
I'd even be prepared to brave the command line options! I think the
Videora converter is built on ffmpeg so it might be possible 

I guess the reason I "think Apple" is that where podcasting is
concerned they are the big game in town. Oh, and I paid for QTPro.

I like my final file to be in .mov format only because I can add a
link to our site at the end, but considering the banjax that's been
made of all this by Apple I might go for a generic H.264 MP4. I mean,
I'm sure there are Apple tech people reading all this and thinking
"Gee, who is this idiot? It all makes sense to US why things are set
up the way they are." But we're the ones with the content and a bit of
thought about our needs would be nice.

Waz





--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see it as an expansion of the subject, to 'how to get round ipod
> h264 640x480 issues and be in control of bitrate at the same time.
> 
> Ive already answered with more than enough waffle, I think you are
> reliant on Apple changing something in future to make this possible
> with quicktime, or use one of the other non-ideal workarounds, or use
> a different encoder. I would not hesitate to switch encoder, theres
> plenty of alternatives to quicktime, it wasnt the best mpeg4 encoder
> so its probably not the best h264 one either.
> 
> Im quite happy to go research, in more detail than previously, which
> applications exactly will work, but Im not getting much of a sense
> that Waz is interested in abandoning quicktime?
> 
> As fo bitrate, 120MB for 120 minutes footage will seem huge and
> bloated to some but quite fine for others. Its certainly valid to be
> concerened about this and err on the side of smaller files,
> particularily if you only offer one version of your show. But on the
> otherhand do the 640x480 shows look significantly better with the
> higher bitrates that Apple use? Theres a balance to be strck, no point
> moving to a higher res if there are lots more compression artifacts
> because you havent used a high enough bitrate. Apple probably go too
> far the other way, and people likely differ in sensitivity to certain
> compression artifacts, whras lower resolutions may be more universally
> noticed, I dunno.
> 
> And as for asking blip how they will do it, well again I assume they
> arent using quicktime to do their server side transcoding so they
> arent facing the same issue that you are. I imagine they may use
> ffmpeg but thats only a guess. So any answers they could give would
> probably be similar to mine, only useful if you are prepared to use
> something other than quicktime to do the encoding.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Now you've completely changed the subject.  Look at the title of the
> > post.  You asked what to do in order to get past the "clash between
> > Apple TV and the iPod".  Now you're talking about data rates instead
> > of compression formats.
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys guys guys,
> > > 
> > > Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on
> > > your viewers?
> > > 
> > > Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example?
> > > 
> > > Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what
I've
> > > been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or
> > > anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3.
> > > 
> > > I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes
long and
> > > takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity"
> > > issue it won't iPod.
> > > 
> > > There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as
> > > changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the
> > > parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro.
> > > 
> > > Waz
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good call, Bill.  That's right along the lines of what I was
> thinking.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Bill C.
> > > > BillCammack.com
> > > > 
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Shackelford"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and
quicktime.. I
> > > > just use iPod .m4v 
> > > > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video
> that
> > > > anyone can watch. 
> > > > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v
would
> > > > be .mp4 video that 
> > > > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to  PSP...
but .mp4
> > > >

[videoblogging] Fwd: The Public Radio Talent Quest

[Steve Rhodes]

This is interesting (and I know some of you do audio plus public
radio is doing more video, so it might help to also be a vlogger)

-- Forwarded message --
From: PRX Announcement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Apr 23, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: The Public Radio Talent Quest
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   [image: PRX Brings You Talent
Quest]
  April
23, 2007

 *Hi
Steve,

>From time to time
PRXgets
in touch about new developments on the site or news we think you'd be
interested in. This is an important and fun project designed with PRX
members in mind as potential participants. You may already have heard about
it elsewhere or on the PRX home page, if not please check it out, and thanks
for supporting PRX.

- Jake Shapiro, Executive Director
*


So, You Want to Be a Public Radio Star?

PRX has launched the first-ever Public Radio Talent
Quest,
a nationwide search for the next generation of hosts for public radio.
Contestants can submit a 2-minute audio demo for their shot at $10,000 and
the opportunity to produce a pilot show for public radio.

Even if you don't enter, you can help decide the winners by voting online
alongside a panel of expert judges. It's kind of like "This American
Idol"... read more about the Talent
Quest,
and sign up 
today.


*"This is Ira Glass from This American Life. This doesn't sound like it's
serious and it doesn't sound like we really mean it but we are dead serious.
We are looking for the next public radio star. Enter the Public Radio Talent
Quest at publicradioquest.com. The finalists win cash and the chance to make
a show."*
(Click here to listen to Ira's audio
invitation.)



Check out other celebrity
endorsementsfrom
Terry Gross, Mo Rocca, Peter Segal, John Hodgman, and more. And while
you're at it, grab a
bannerto
put on your own site to spread the word.

See the Talent Quest Message Board or check out our Frequently Asked
Questions page. Good luck!

Questions?
See the Talent Quest Message
Boardor
check out our Frequently
Asked 
Questionspage.
Good luck!

PRX Privacy Policy <#1121fcfbef5e2241_> |
Unsubscribe
PRX is a collaboration of the Station Resource
Groupand
Atlantic
Public 
Media,
with support from public radio stations and producers, The Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, The National Endowment for the Arts, The Ford
Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open
Society Institute, and the Surdna Foundation.




-- 
Steve Rhodes

http://ari.typepad.com

http://tigerbeat.vox.com  blogs

http://flickr.com/photos/ari/  photos

http://del.icio.us/tigerbeat   interesting articles & sites

http://twitter.com/tigerbeat


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[Steve Watkins]

Cheers. Do you know which version of rocketboom is preloaded intot he
feed list of the Nokia podcasting app? I got the N95 and rocketboom
was there, but I didnt check to see which version. Im guessing its one
of the 3gp ones, but this particular phone can do mpeg4 and h264 so it
seems like a shame to be defaulting to the lower-quality version.But 
I guess from Nokia's point of view they have one app that works on a
range of phones with differing video capabilities, so they would pick
default feeds that work on all, even if they dont make the best of
something like the N95?

Anyway regardless of the N95 having a 4:3 display, I do like
rocketboom in widescreen, how long ago was it now that you switched?
Was a new cam the driving factor at the time?

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "andrew michael baron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Good points which suggest that there are really 2 kinds of solution
sets that have variable best case scenarios. 
> 
> Also, some users may sync their iphone for high quality files, but
others may enjoy lower res files that could be d/l over a slow EDGE
network. 
> 
> We already have 2 phone 3g files for low and high speed networks due
to demand. 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via CrackBerry  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:29:38 
> To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash
> 
> I think people stick to 4:3 most often because they are shooting in
>  that aspect ratio. And whilst its true that it seems a shame to waste
>  the screen real-estate of th widescreen devices out there, 16:9 stuff
>  on a 4:3 display like the built in ipod could also be seen as wastefu
>  and selfish because some of that 4:3 screen is now wasted with black
>  bars, or cutoff part of the image and wonder if missing anything
>  important.
>  
>  I love 16:9 but I think 4:3 has an important place for a good while
>  longer, and theres plenty of footage that doesnt benefit too hugely
>  from being widescreen.
>  
>  Also I guess when it comes to ipod playback, 16:9 is actually going to
>  be a smaller res than 4:3, assuming ipod encoding takes 640 as the
>  maximum width, regardless of aspect ratio, and then picks the right
>  vertical res to match the aspect ratio? ie 16:9 footage will end up at
>  640x360 as opposed to 4:3 being at 640x480? 
>  
>  Cheers
>  
>  Steve Elbows
>  --- In videoblogging@: 
yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
>   wrote:
>  >
>  > The only reason NOT to go with separate files, in my opinion, is 
>  > based on ranking in the charts. For instance, if you have 2 or three 
>  > dif quicktime feeds, it starts to divide your itunes audiences and 
>  > then you dont get reported on any charts. There is some discovery 
>  > loss for people who browse itunes.
>  > 
>  > Im new to TVs myself, but aren't most HD TV's optimized for wide- 
>  > screen viewing? And isn't the iphone widescreen as well? So why 3:4 
>  > letterbox that much of the screen real-estate? It would have to be a 
>  > pretty selfish reason, no?
>  > 
>  > And if someone is going to watch on just an iPod, Id rather spend
the 
>  > selfishness on saving the bandwidth because the increase in quality 
>  > doesn't seem substantial enough for a small ipod screen unless an 
>  > audience member is a rare audiophile type or collector.
>  > 
>  > Everyone is different, though it seems logical and not unfamiliar to 
>  > provide multiple feeds and file formats. Format options seem to be 
>  > expanding, not narrowing.
>  > 
>  > Drew
>  > 
>  > p.s. It would be interesting to ask Scott S. about this: I recall
the 
>  > publicly distributed info about the possibility of a single cross 
>  > platform file format (i.e. a 640x480 file for ipod, tv and "some 
>  > other devise") that came out just before the iphone was introduced. 
>  > Interestingly enough, I heard from David Pogue - based on his 
>  > interview with Jobs - that Apple used tactics to fool, hide and 
>  > divert info from their employees and their partners in order to keep 
>  > the iPhone secret up until the last minute. Thus, the inference that 
>  > there would be no widescreen anything was made. Kinda of a far 
>  > fetched casual proposition as to why people are stuck with 3:4 a 
>  > consequence but you never know :)
>  >
>

[videoblogging] we got MADE on MAKE

[ryanne hodson]

check it out
ryanishungry
got on MAKE today.

http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/04/wendy_tremayne_and_mikey.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/yqnlfm

check out the post
it's a cool series we're doing on these folks in NM. Green pioneers they
are.
very inspiring.

enjoy!

-ry

-- 
Pixelodeon-June 9th & 10th
American Film Institute (AFI) LA, CA
>From the Computer Screen to the Big Screen
http://pixelodeonfest.com/
-- 
Author of Secrets of Videoblogging >http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
Me > http://RyanEdit.com, http://RyanIsHungry.com
Educate > http://FreeVlog.org, http://Node101.org
Community Capitalism> http://HaveMoneyWillVlog.com
iChat/AIM > VideoRodeo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[Steve Watkins]

Oops that was supposed to read 'for 10 minutes footage'.

Also when it comes to whats 'fair' for viewers I certainly think its
unfair that there is so much dedication to providing compatibiltiy
with Apple devices compared with many other devices.

So for example I will report back when the XBox360 mp4 support comes
out in May, whether it works with ipod & apple-tv formats. Because if
it has other quirks that affect compatibility, I just dont expect
people to strive for workarounds as much as they do for Apple stuff. 

Has anybody got a PS3 that they could experiment with mp4 support on
and let us know if apple-centric formats are compatible?

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As fo bitrate, 120MB for 120 minutes footage will seem huge and
> bloated to some but quite fine for others. 

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[Steve Watkins]

I see it as an expansion of the subject, to 'how to get round ipod
h264 640x480 issues and be in control of bitrate at the same time.

Ive already answered with more than enough waffle, I think you are
reliant on Apple changing something in future to make this possible
with quicktime, or use one of the other non-ideal workarounds, or use
a different encoder. I would not hesitate to switch encoder, theres
plenty of alternatives to quicktime, it wasnt the best mpeg4 encoder
so its probably not the best h264 one either.

Im quite happy to go research, in more detail than previously, which
applications exactly will work, but Im not getting much of a sense
that Waz is interested in abandoning quicktime?

As fo bitrate, 120MB for 120 minutes footage will seem huge and
bloated to some but quite fine for others. Its certainly valid to be
concerened about this and err on the side of smaller files,
particularily if you only offer one version of your show. But on the
otherhand do the 640x480 shows look significantly better with the
higher bitrates that Apple use? Theres a balance to be strck, no point
moving to a higher res if there are lots more compression artifacts
because you havent used a high enough bitrate. Apple probably go too
far the other way, and people likely differ in sensitivity to certain
compression artifacts, whras lower resolutions may be more universally
noticed, I dunno.

And as for asking blip how they will do it, well again I assume they
arent using quicktime to do their server side transcoding so they
arent facing the same issue that you are. I imagine they may use
ffmpeg but thats only a guess. So any answers they could give would
probably be similar to mine, only useful if you are prepared to use
something other than quicktime to do the encoding.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Now you've completely changed the subject.  Look at the title of the
> post.  You asked what to do in order to get past the "clash between
> Apple TV and the iPod".  Now you're talking about data rates instead
> of compression formats.
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au"  wrote:
> >
> > Guys guys guys,
> > 
> > Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on
> > your viewers?
> > 
> > Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example?
> > 
> > Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've
> > been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or
> > anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3.
> > 
> > I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and
> > takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity"
> > issue it won't iPod.
> > 
> > There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as
> > changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the
> > parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro.
> > 
> > Waz
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good call, Bill.  That's right along the lines of what I was
thinking.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Bill C.
> > > BillCammack.com
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Shackelford"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I
> > > just use iPod .m4v 
> > > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video
that
> > > anyone can watch. 
> > > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would
> > > be .mp4 video that 
> > > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to  PSP... but .mp4
> > > videos kinda suck to 
> > > > playback over the web in my opinion. 
> > > > 
> > > > My feed:
> > > > 
> > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod
> > > > 
> > > > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my
site
> > > and the enclosures are 
> > > > the .m4v files.
> > > > 
> > > > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been
> > > looking at those.
> > > > 
> > > > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"

> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to
the feed
> > > > > that works for you.  http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has
> > about 6
> > > > > feeds.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being
> playable on
> > > > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the
> > reasons you
> > > > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator.  I haven't
> > > > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the
> data
> > > > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd
> > make a
> > > > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure
it also
> > > > > runs on AppleTV.  You might

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[Bill Cammack]

Now you've completely changed the subject.  Look at the title of the
post.  You asked what to do in order to get past the "clash between
Apple TV and the iPod".  Now you're talking about data rates instead
of compression formats.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guys guys guys,
> 
> Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on
> your viewers?
> 
> Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example?
> 
> Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've
> been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or
> anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3.
> 
> I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and
> takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity"
> issue it won't iPod.
> 
> There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as
> changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the
> parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro.
> 
> Waz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Good call, Bill.  That's right along the lines of what I was thinking.
> > 
> > --
> > Bill C.
> > BillCammack.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Shackelford"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I
> > just use iPod .m4v 
> > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video that
> > anyone can watch. 
> > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would
> > be .mp4 video that 
> > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to  PSP... but .mp4
> > videos kinda suck to 
> > > playback over the web in my opinion. 
> > > 
> > > My feed:
> > > 
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod
> > > 
> > > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my site
> > and the enclosures are 
> > > the .m4v files.
> > > 
> > > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been
> > looking at those.
> > > 
> > > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to the feed
> > > > that works for you.  http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has
> about 6
> > > > feeds.
> > > > 
> > > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being
playable on
> > > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the
> reasons you
> > > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator.  I haven't
> > > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the
data
> > > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd
> make a
> > > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure it also
> > > > runs on AppleTV.  You might lose some resolution that way, but
> if you
> > > > insist on having only one feed, that's the only way I can see it
> > > > working.  Again, assuming there IS a LCD that you can encode to.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Bill C.
> > > > BillCammack.com
> > > > 
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess the assumption would be that your viewers would
> subscribe to
> > > > > one feed or the other, depending on which hardware they owned. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Its not ideal but it may be ideal for some viewers, depending
> on how
> > > > > fussy they are about getting the best possible qualiy on their
> > device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unfortunately these issues are unlikely to vanish. Because for
> > all my
> > > > > evangelising about mpeg4 and h24 standards, this is unlikely
> to boil
> > > > > down to one common subset of h264 just so long as theres so much
> > > > > variation in decoding power between devices. Battery life is
a big
> > > > > issue for mobile devices and high-def TV's arent very
forgiving of
> > > > > low-quality/low res footage, so it may get worse. If
high-def web
> > > > > video wasnt so absurdly huge in comparison to what we're
> mostly used
> > > > > to, there would probably be even more confusion and conflicting
> > > > > pressures already.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The jump from 320x240 t 640x480 is quite significant, I know
Apple
> > > > > mailed people advising everyone to change, but theres certainly
> > merit
> > > > > in considering still offering a 320x240 version at this
time. You
> > > > > could for example keep the ipod feed at 320x240 and offer the
> > 640x480
> > > > > version specifically for apple TV. Because Im not sure how
> many ipod
> > > > > people use the TV out, and they might hate the increased
filesizze
> > > > > more than they appreciate the higher res they may never get to
> see. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > 
> > > > > Steve Elbows
> > > > >  
> > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" 
> > wrote:
> > 

[videoblogging] 12-Step Videoblogging

[Bill Cammack]

Joitske Hulsebosch's 12-Step Videoblogging post:



--
Bill C.
BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[wazman_au]

Mike,

Great. How about sharing the secret with those of us who'd like to
encode the vids ourselves???

What sort of file size are we talking? Let's talk megabytes per minute
at 640x480.

Waz

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Waz,
> 
> Blip pro account holders soon won't have to worry about this :)  We're
> hoping to have transcoding to an Apple TV + iPod compatible format
> available for pro users in our next release (about two weeks away).
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:30 PM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Apple TV and iPod clash
> 
> Stupid bloody Apple, why do they DO things like this
> 
> Folks, this is a tough one, and yes, I've read through the
> Casey-initiated thread. Good start 
> but sadly optimistic.
> 
> The question is, how do we pump out vids that are 640x480 and have the
> "baseline low-
> complexity" profile, thus being both iPod and (presumably) Apple TV
> compatible?
> 
> Baseline can be selected when exporting with your own settings, but the
> "low-complexity" 
> sub-option cannot. According to Apple's developer spec, low-complexity
> has been defined 
> by Apple for the iPod, and it seems to be restricted to the Export for
> iPod option, which 
> cannot be configured.
> 
> When exporting an iPod video, QuickTime chooses automatically whether to
> use "baseline" 
> or "baseline low-complexity" - in a nutshell, anything upwards of
> 320x240 gets low-
> complexity. Gory details here:
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html
> 
> Three possible workarounds. I am not in front of QTPro right now so will
> try later:
> 
> 1) Use the Export for iPod option with the source vid sized at 640x480 -
> this will goad 
> QTPro into using low-complexity - and then find some way of saving the
> resulting video 
> _again_ with a chopped-down bitrate, perhaps by doing a "Save as ..."
> but without re-
> encoding. 
> 
> 2) Do it the other way round - export at the bitrate etc. that you want,
> then run it through 
> the iPod export. The developer spec suggests QT iPod exporter using a
> 640x480 source 
> file will pick its own bitrate according to a complex formula ("DR = {
> (nMC * 8 ) / 3 } - 100" 
> I kid you not, check out the developer link above) between 700 and
> 1500kbps. But maybe 
> if the source file is already lower, it won't jump up the bitrate too
> shockingly. The MC in 
> the equation stands for "macroblock" and if the number of these can be
> reduced in the 
> source file (how? Dunno) then, doing the maths, you are headed for a
> smaller result.
> 
> 3) Resize your source video to 640x480, whack it through Export for iPod
> and hope the 
> filesize is not too bloated. As in the formula above, this should
> produce something 
> between 700kbps and 1500kbps, although Apple doesn't say whether the
> audio is 
> included in that bitrate (AAARGH!).   
> 
> I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully crafted 640x480
> recipe with 
> meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that delivered a file
> of 5MB/minute that 
> looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable doesn't work on the
> iPod.
> 
> I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove their TV box ... and
> all of the above still 
> leaves the question unanswered: will the aforementioned oblong
> suppository PLAY H.264 
> BASELINE LOW-COMPLEXITY???
> 
> Anyone got one of these boxes?
> 
> That's all for now. I know none of the above is tested but I thought I'd
> post now while my 
> blood is up, and to give others the chance to look for a solution.
> 
> Waz from Crash Test Kitchen
> http://www.crashtestkitchen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[wazman_au]

I have not used Export to iPod either, for the same reason.

My custom settings have worked fine for 320x240; it's the change to
640x480 that is the problem. In short, in QT Pro you can't do a
customised file at these dimensions that will work on the iPod -
because it requires the use of the "baseline low-complexity" profile
which cannot be manually selected and it only comes into play
automatically when using the non-configurable iPod exporter.

I think when you say "all my videos sync to iPod" you are _not_
talking about 640x480 as detailed above. Try exporting one of your
custom files in 640x480 and see for yourself.

Waz



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Waz,
> What are your carefully crafted settings?
> I have *never* used the crappy Export to iPod option with its lack of  
> customization.
> But using either custom H264, MP4 or 3ivx settings, all my videos  
> have synced fine with my iPod.
> If you can say what your settings are, I'll compare with what I've  
> used and see if I can help.
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
> http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/
> 
> 
> On 22 Apr 2007, at 20:30, wazman_au wrote:
> I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully crafted 640x480  
> recipe with
> meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that delivered a  
> file of 5MB/minute that
> looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable doesn't work on  
> the iPod.
> 
> I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove their TV box ...  
> and all of the above 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash

[wazman_au]

Guys guys guys,

Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on
your viewers?

Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example?

Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've
been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or
anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3.

I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and
takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity"
issue it won't iPod.

There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as
changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the
parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro.

Waz





--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Good call, Bill.  That's right along the lines of what I was thinking.
> 
> --
> Bill C.
> BillCammack.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Shackelford"
>  wrote:
> >
> > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I
> just use iPod .m4v 
> > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video that
> anyone can watch. 
> > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would
> be .mp4 video that 
> > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to  PSP... but .mp4
> videos kinda suck to 
> > playback over the web in my opinion. 
> > 
> > My feed:
> > 
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod
> > 
> > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my site
> and the enclosures are 
> > the .m4v files.
> > 
> > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been
> looking at those.
> > 
> > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to the feed
> > > that works for you.  http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has
about 6
> > > feeds.
> > > 
> > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being playable on
> > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the
reasons you
> > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator.  I haven't
> > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the data
> > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd
make a
> > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure it also
> > > runs on AppleTV.  You might lose some resolution that way, but
if you
> > > insist on having only one feed, that's the only way I can see it
> > > working.  Again, assuming there IS a LCD that you can encode to.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Bill C.
> > > BillCammack.com
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess the assumption would be that your viewers would
subscribe to
> > > > one feed or the other, depending on which hardware they owned. 
> > > > 
> > > > Its not ideal but it may be ideal for some viewers, depending
on how
> > > > fussy they are about getting the best possible qualiy on their
> device.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately these issues are unlikely to vanish. Because for
> all my
> > > > evangelising about mpeg4 and h24 standards, this is unlikely
to boil
> > > > down to one common subset of h264 just so long as theres so much
> > > > variation in decoding power between devices. Battery life is a big
> > > > issue for mobile devices and high-def TV's arent very forgiving of
> > > > low-quality/low res footage, so it may get worse. If high-def web
> > > > video wasnt so absurdly huge in comparison to what we're
mostly used
> > > > to, there would probably be even more confusion and conflicting
> > > > pressures already.
> > > > 
> > > > The jump from 320x240 t 640x480 is quite significant, I know Apple
> > > > mailed people advising everyone to change, but theres certainly
> merit
> > > > in considering still offering a 320x240 version at this time. You
> > > > could for example keep the ipod feed at 320x240 and offer the
> 640x480
> > > > version specifically for apple TV. Because Im not sure how
many ipod
> > > > people use the TV out, and they might hate the increased filesizze
> > > > more than they appreciate the higher res they may never get to
see. 
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers
> > > > 
> > > > Steve Elbows
> > > >  
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can't see how that would work, because Apple TV syncs with
> iTunes on
> > > > > your computer, which means your iPoddable feed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You could have a separate feed but this would effectively be a
> > > > > separate podcast - and would you expect your viewers to
> subscribe to
> > > > both?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Waz
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Work-around #4
> > > > > > 
> 

[videoblogging] Re: Affordable Video Lights

[Tony]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'm looking for GOOD prices on video lighting. These are for when I
> can setup lights for scenes in my videos. I've been using some
> mutli-directional floor lamps and now want something better.
> 
> Keep in mind: I would prefer not having to spend A TON of money on
> light bulbs since one kit I saw had a 2-3 hour lifespan for the
> lights. I also need this to be affordable!
> 
> Thanks very much!
> 
> -- 
> -Jonathan Bloom
> http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com
>

It's probably very easy to make your own. Two sites you might want to
search are:

http://www.makezine.com/blog

and

http://www.instructables.com

[videoblogging] Bullet-Time

[Bill Cammack]

Anybody using a digital camera that shoots more than 30fps? 
Preferably 120fps or higher?

Ever since watching "300" @ the IMAX, I've been interested in smooth
slow motion.  The more fps, the smoother it looks when you
speed-change the video, so for instance 25% speed on a clip going
120fps still gives you 30fps.

--
Bill C.
BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Affordable Video Lights

[Adam Jochum]

Jonathan,

There are lots of DIY lighting solutions, most of which can be
assembled from Home Depot or its like.  Shop lights with stands are
readily available, and widely used in video production.

Depending on your needs, you may also want to investigate true stage
lighting; it may not be as expensive as you imagine.  You can get 'Par
16' or 'Par 32' stage lights for cheap on Ebay, and they take standard
spotlight bulbs, again available at your local Home Depot.  The
advantage of true stage lighting is the ability to 'color' the lights
with gels, thus getting exactly the effect you want.  A good resource
for these lights is www.northernlightsfx.com, and reasonably priced.

If your intent is interviewing, you will want at least one 'big, soft'
light, and the granddaddy is called a 'soft box'.  Look for one on Ebay.

Lastly, there are tons of other resources for lighting advice,
including many books, and indeed, videos on the subject. 
Videomaker.com sells a couple, and I'm sure Amazon has even more. 
Good luck!

Regards,

Adam Jochum
www.cafn8ed.tv

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'm looking for GOOD prices on video lighting. These are for when I
> can setup lights for scenes in my videos. I've been using some
> mutli-directional floor lamps and now want something better.
> 
> Keep in mind: I would prefer not having to spend A TON of money on
> light bulbs since one kit I saw had a 2-3 hour lifespan for the
> lights. I also need this to be affordable!
> 
> Thanks very much!
> 
> -- 
> -Jonathan Bloom
> http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com
>

[videoblogging] New Videoblog: Water Words That Work

[strollingbones2]

Hi Videobloggers,

I've been lurking on this list for YEARS, ever since I saw the third
episode of Rocketboom way back in the pre-YouTube days. 

I'm proud to report that I finally finally finally joined the cool
kids and launched a videoblog of my own a few weeks back. It's called
Water Words That Work and it explores the topic of science
communications for nature protection and pollution control.

http://waterwordsthatwork.com

I'm working hard on this. I post two or three new videos each week.
Traffic is pretty good and I'm starting to get a respectable number of
comments and emails. 

For the geeks among you, here are the stats:

The blog is Word Press. I tweaked the theme myself. I'm hosting it at
BlueHost. It's cheap and fairly reliable.

I edit the video using a software package called Visual Communicator.
It's a little buggy but the teleprompter and green screen effects are
worth the occasional hassle.

My computer is a pretty new HP laptop with a built in webcam.

I host the videos on BlueHost, and run them through AdBright, which
provides an advertising revenue sharing program kind of like Revver
and BlipTV. Many of my viewers are government scientists, and the
agencies they work for often block Blip, Revver, and YouTube. So
hosting the vids myself to get around the luddite free-speech hating
censors at HQ.

Check it out and tell me what you think: http://waterwordsthatwork.com


Eric Eckl
Water Words That Work
http://waterwordsthatwork.com

Re: [videoblogging] Apple TV and iPod clash

[Rupert]

Waz,
What are your carefully crafted settings?
I have *never* used the crappy Export to iPod option with its lack of  
customization.
But using either custom H264, MP4 or 3ivx settings, all my videos  
have synced fine with my iPod.
If you can say what your settings are, I'll compare with what I've  
used and see if I can help.
Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/


On 22 Apr 2007, at 20:30, wazman_au wrote:
I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully crafted 640x480  
recipe with
meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that delivered a  
file of 5MB/minute that
looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable doesn't work on  
the iPod.

I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove their TV box ...  
and all of the above 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Saturday April 21st, 2007 FlashMeeting

[Rupert]

Aaargh.
I loved the one Flashmeeting that I joined during videoblogging week  
while my wife was away.  But I'm never going to be able to join it  
again.  At 1am on Tuesday/Wednesday it's just too late for me and at  
5pm on Saturdays, I'm always busy with family things.  Joining a  
video chat in the middle of Saturday afternoon/evening would be a  
sackable offense in my household.

I bet it's a great ongoing resource, like Randy says it is.  I'd love  
to be able to benefit from the discussions there, even if I can't  
contribute, because I bet a lot of good stuff gets thrashed out.

I would love it if there was an easy digest of what was discussed,  
whether in video or in text.

Is there any way that what's being discussed could be easily  
recorded, in an archivable and RSSable form - It would be great if  
topics were recorded in the chat stream, if that text were then able  
to be RSS'd and subscribed to or crossposted to a blog or a wiki -  
but presumably it can't be.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/


On 22 Apr 2007, at 14:46, RANDY MANN wrote:

Life casting, colibitive video blog, greatest wealth of video bogging  
info

I was just watching yesterdays flash meeting, it has to be one of the
greatest archive of videoblogging know how. (not just yesterdays but  
as a
collective.)

if it had there own rss feed and a blog page it would be the longest
colibitve vidoe blog going.
Any thoughts on the suggested wiki and the ongoing story?

On 4/21/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > It's on, come on by:
 >
 > http://tinyurl.com/298vk6
 >
 > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
 > "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > >
 > > This Saturday, 4/21/07, FlashMeeting is coming up. The starting  
time
 > > is 10am - noon PST USA, 1pm - 3pm EST USA, 17:00-19:00 GMT.
 > >
 > > Go to this link:
 > >
 > > http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/5ba303-8160
 > >
 > > For future and past meeting check the FlashMeeting page at:
 > >
 > > http://flashmeeting.cirne.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
 > >
 > > -- Enric
 > > -==-
 > > http://www.cirne.com
 > >
 >
 >
 >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] PodCamp San Antonio May 19th

[Morning Brew Cast]

Greetings Vloggers,

Jennifer Navarrete with PodCamp San Antonio inviting everyone to come down
to sunny San Antonio on May 19th to participate in Texas' 1st PodCamp!  To
find out more info about this FREE event simply go to:
http://podcampsanantonio.org

Sign up on site or feel free to email me podcampsanantonio AT gmail DOT com

Got a topic you want to present?  GREAT! We're looking forward to seeing
vloggers share their knowledge and passion for video blogging.

Cheers,
Jennifer Navarrete
-- 
PodCamp San Antonio
http://PodCampSanAntonio.org
---
http://www.MorningBrewCast.com
Flickr pics: http://flickr.com/photos/morningbrewcast/
---
San Antonio Podcasting Meetup Organizer
http://www.podcasting.meetup.com/58
---
San Antonio Podcasters
http://www.sapodcasters.podbean.com