[videoblogging] High Quality Flash
Hi, Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to blip? I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage. I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y) and am hoping to have more success. I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file. We've got great cameras and great high motion footage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] High Quality Flash
We use Visual Hub software - it is very fast encoding and does a darn good job. It is for the mac. Rox On Feb 12, 2008 10:00 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to blip? I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage. I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y) and am hoping to have more success. I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file. We've got great cameras and great high motion footage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
Hello, On Feb 12, 2008 10:44 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your words are golden Bill. Only good content is king, rather than just any content. Just because content is created doesn't mean it's worth watching. On another note though, I am surprised that none of the companies, including blip, takes notice about what the producers need to monetize online shows, they only look at the scenery of online video from their software programming mindset. And when they flip, they wonder what they did wrong... It's all about usability testing!!! Put yourself in the shoes of the end-user and see if you will resonate to the existing video ad approaches. Big advertising platform creators like Maven networks and Move networks have it tailored for huge Fox-like corporations to be smoothly transforming their traditional TV content to the web. However, there's no company with a practical solution that does that for the independent producers. Does that mean that the future of online video advertising is only for the established TV brands? Why can't independent content producers establish an alliance that works with advertisers directly? There needs to be an RSS video ad approach for this to work. If there's any Adobe Flex programmers reading this they should take notice that this is where online video can prosper benefiting all. Similar to Google's Adwords this RSS feed would automatically embed itself to the most watched episode of an online show, hence advertisers are happy that the ad is seen by many. Also URL hotspots in the video is also essential for product placement for new tab opening when the end-user clicks on it. What are your thoughts on this? Take this from someone who was the principal software engineer at an online advertising network for 3+ years and someone played most the roles of this take this as advice from the engineer creating this technology... from a publisher selling ads on his sites... from an advertiser creating ads and finding places to put those ads... and to some degree (from daily observation of my former co-workers)... from a sales person dealing with advertisers... and a business development person attracting publishers. AND not someone who's just rambling and giving advice about something he doesn't know anything about. ATTRACTING ADVERTISERS Create an advertise here page on your video blog. And make sure potential advertisers can find it and get to it. (There is alot that can be said about this... but to make it so my reply isn't too long, I'll keep this brief.) OK... so you want to get advertisers?! Have you told them how to contact you? Have you even told them you are accepting advertisers? Do you provide information about how you sell advertising? (CPM? CPT? CPC? CPA? Etc?) What about how much you charge? The minimum you should probably do is create an advertise here page giving this kind of information. (You probably want to keep SEO and other promotion techniques in mind for this page too when creating it.) Ideally though you'd have more than just an advertise here page... and have a self serve (and automated) system where people could pay you money online and see their ad get scheduled to come up right there and then. (All automated without them having to wait, and without you necessarily having to do much anything... other than quality control, fraud detection, etc.) Really though... if you really want to get advertisers... I strongly suggest you get sales people. They can really help But, I know... I know. How can you afford one?. if you can't afford one by yourself, then team up with other people and get some. Get enough people and you should be able to afford some sales people. But make sure the people you team up with make your combined offering attractive to advertisers. Either make it so your combined content could be considered to be about the same thing to advertisers... or where your audience is very very similar (according to the metrics advertisers use). Additionally, teaming up with other advertisers can help you sell your ad space too. Many advertisers will consider most video bloggers to be way too small for them to bother with. (Purchases of hundreds or thousands of dollars isn't worth it to them.) It's just too much hassle for the ROI. (They feel that they send too much time on something that's no worth very much money to them.) They're trying to make purchases of tens of thousands of dollars (or more) of ad space... and you probably don't have enough traffic for those kinds of numbers. But if you team up with other people, all of you together may be able to offer that much advertising inventory. RSS AND WEB SYNDICATION There's a problem with RSS, the way it is today. Well... 2 problems actually. The first problem is that you can only have one single video file per episode, because there's is only one enclosure allowed. (And yes I know about MediaRSS.
[videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
In what way is flash-deluvered video not really video? Surely its one of the few methods that gives advertisers creators the necessary control? If adverts are delivered based on RSS playlists, then someone like me who despises adverts, will have a lot easier time stripping the pollution of ads from the content I actualy want to watch? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now... to side step this 2 pronged RSS enclosure problem, you could not bother using the RSS enclosure and just send a Flash-based video player or a Java-based video player instead... but... that's not really video. And, although it may be a solution in the short term... it's going to cause us problems in the long run. So it's important to get this RSS enclosure, playlist, pre-fetching thing right now IMO. There's alot more that could be said... but I'll end this here. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
Flash-delivered video (as you call it) is a *video player*. And thus is not video. I.e., Flash-delivered video is similar to the Windows Media Player, the QuickTime Player, VLC. (It's basically a Flash-based video player... similar to a Java-applet based video player.) But it is not video. I.e., it is not a video file. The FLV file that these Flash-based video players play are the videos. (But we may be just arguing semantics.) And... as far as blocking ads in playlists just mark some of the actual content to be downloaded at the last minute too (like the ads)... so that if the user automatically blocks anything that is marked to download at the last minute to block the ads... then they end up blocking parts of the content too which makes auto-ad-blockers software impossible. This doesn't stop them from fast-forwarding through the ad (which is fine... because if the user really doesn't watch that particular ad, then it's a bad idea to try to force them). But that requires the user action and is much different than automated software that blocks every single ad no matter what (so the user doesn't even see them even if they would have been interested in it). See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 1:26 AM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In what way is flash-deluvered video not really video? Surely its one of the few methods that gives advertisers creators the necessary control? If adverts are delivered based on RSS playlists, then someone like me who despises adverts, will have a lot easier time stripping the pollution of ads from the content I actualy want to watch? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now... to side step this 2 pronged RSS enclosure problem, you could not bother using the RSS enclosure and just send a Flash-based video player or a Java-based video player instead... but... that's not really video. And, although it may be a solution in the short term... it's going to cause us problems in the long run. So it's important to get this RSS enclosure, playlist, pre-fetching thing right now IMO. There's alot more that could be said... but I'll end this here. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash
Oh yea, me too! That software ROX! Thanks for the tip Rox. Very nice app there, for sure. Now I have to go back and rethink just about everything. iTunes won't take that FLV file will they? How do I go about putting multiple files out? Got to sleep... marathon... SEO work for the last couple days on my sites (Thanks, Jake!) Check out the new blip player and attempt at SEO -izing over at http://k9disc.com . I didn't hear anyone mention the new version of blip being out. I'll have lots of questions soon. Thanks again, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:06 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: Me Too. VisualHub. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We use Visual Hub software - it is very fast encoding and does a darn good job. It is for the mac. Rox On Feb 12, 2008 10:00 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to blip? I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage. I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y) and am hoping to have more success. I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file. We've got great cameras and great high motion footage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash
Me Too. VisualHub. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We use Visual Hub software - it is very fast encoding and does a darn good job. It is for the mac. Rox On Feb 12, 2008 10:00 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to blip? I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage. I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y) and am hoping to have more success. I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file. We've got great cameras and great high motion footage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = iTunes won't take that FLV file will they? iTunes is all mp4, isn't it? Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
Hey Renat, I wish I could say that everything you talk about was easy to do and that we could just flip a switch and have it all be perfect and work for every independent producer - but that's just not the way it is. There are a few of us that are trying to make several of those things you write about happen for independents but it's going to take time and help from everyone. It's easy to complain about the situation but if you are really interested in bringing advertisers and content producers together I urge you to join the Association of Downloadable Media http://www.downloadablemedia.org/ and sign up to attend Ad-tech in San Francisco in April 15-17 http://tinyurl.com/3cg6g6 The ADM will be offering a substantial discount to the event and there will be some steps taken in the direction you are talking about. Rome wasn't built at an advertising conference and all are problems won't be solved there either but if you can attend you will be surrounded by other people who want to see independent content creators and advertisers come together. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 12, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Your words are golden Bill. Only good content is king, rather than just any content. Just because content is created doesn't mean it's worth watching. On another note though, I am surprised that none of the companies, including blip, takes notice about what the producers need to monetize online shows, they only look at the scenery of online video from their software programming mindset. And when they flip, they wonder what they did wrong... It's all about usability testing!!! Put yourself in the shoes of the end-user and see if you will resonate to the existing video ad approaches. Big advertising platform creators like Maven networks and Move networks have it tailored for huge Fox-like corporations to be smoothly transforming their traditional TV content to the web. However, there's no company with a practical solution that does that for the independent producers. Does that mean that the future of online video advertising is only for the established TV brands? Why can't independent content producers establish an alliance that works with advertisers directly? There needs to be an RSS video ad approach for this to work. If there's any Adobe Flex programmers reading this they should take notice that this is where online video can prosper benefiting all. Similar to Google's Adwords this RSS feed would automatically embed itself to the most watched episode of an online show, hence advertisers are happy that the ad is seen by many. Also URL hotspots in the video is also essential for product placement for new tab opening when the end-user clicks on it. What are your thoughts on this? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I respect what he's saying, because he's the one with the company that deals with the business end of making money off of people that make videos, I don't think lack of content is the problem here. The problem *now* is what I've BEEN saying the problem is, which is that without a way to figure out whether suburban males with lawns that are likely to buy a lawnmower are tuning in to your show, you can't sell advertising to lawnmower manufacturers. To say that there isn't enough content for companies to advertise on doesn't take into account that there's tons of content that NOBODY wants to advertise on because of lack of perceived ROI. That's what's so funny about this video boom. People are rushing to make a site where people are going to get on the bandwagon and upload UGC and they think they're going to make all this money from it, when in reality, they don't know JACK about video, they don't know JACK about building, growing and maintaining an audience, they don't know JACK about creating, advertising or moderating a social site... All they know is that there's gold in them thar hills! :D Get them a pan. There's CONTENT being made every single day, just on youtube alone. The point is that none of it's monetizable because you can't tell who's clicking on it, and unless you're willing to do some form of shotgun advertising where you know a show gets 200,000 views per week and you're willing to take a chance on them, it's not CONTENT you want, but GOOD content, NICHE content and content you're likely to see ROI from. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: Here is Hilmi Ozguc (of Maven Networks) talking about the future of video advertising. http://wbztv.com/consumer/technology/MITX.Social.Media.2.584567.html Enjoy! [Non-text portions of this message have
[videoblogging] HD quality on YouTube
This link is NSFW, but anybody have any ideas how to get higher bitrate encodes out of YouTube. The video quality is amazing compared to everything else on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/nudisthdtvcom Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
Well I suppose my point is about what apps the viewers are using to consume the feed. Non-browser video aggregators would need to be specially designed to support feeds with adverts in them, and if its done with open standards, its fairly trivial for people to use non-compliant aggregators that thwart the advertising. Whether that just means the users never click on the advert content to play it in the first place, or settings such as 'assume all content less than 60 seconds long in this feed is an ad', or users syncing only the main content with the device they want to watch the videos on, or others forms of playlist manipulation, it sure seems flawed to me. How are you going to get people to even use aggregators that support ads, when people have things like Miro and itunes they can use? Thats why I was placing emphasis on flash, because a flash app can act as an aggregator, using proprietary playlists or whatever behind the scenes, but without the user having the ability to plug those feeds into a player that does not honour the ad system. For downloadable video, it seems to me that the adverts have to be built into the main content video itself, or the necessary control just isnt there? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flash-delivered video (as you call it) is a *video player*. And thus is not video. I.e., Flash-delivered video is similar to the Windows Media Player, the QuickTime Player, VLC. (It's basically a Flash-based video player... similar to a Java-applet based video player.) But it is not video. I.e., it is not a video file. The FLV file that these Flash-based video players play are the videos. (But we may be just arguing semantics.) And... as far as blocking ads in playlists just mark some of the actual content to be downloaded at the last minute too (like the ads)... so that if the user automatically blocks anything that is marked to download at the last minute to block the ads... then they end up blocking parts of the content too which makes auto-ad-blockers software impossible. This doesn't stop them from fast-forwarding through the ad (which is fine... because if the user really doesn't watch that particular ad, then it's a bad idea to try to force them). But that requires the user action and is much different than automated software that blocks every single ad no matter what (so the user doesn't even see them even if they would have been interested in it). See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 1:26 AM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In what way is flash-deluvered video not really video? Surely its one of the few methods that gives advertisers creators the necessary control? If adverts are delivered based on RSS playlists, then someone like me who despises adverts, will have a lot easier time stripping the pollution of ads from the content I actualy want to watch? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux supercanadian@ wrote: Now... to side step this 2 pronged RSS enclosure problem, you could not bother using the RSS enclosure and just send a Flash-based video player or a Java-based video player instead... but... that's not really video. And, although it may be a solution in the short term... it's going to cause us problems in the long run. So it's important to get this RSS enclosure, playlist, pre-fetching thing right now IMO. There's alot more that could be said... but I'll end this here. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
This is great! Go Markey! He's clearly a champion of independent content creators (IMHO) ... Richard On Feb 13, 2008 10:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
Although I haven't tested it myself yet, with iTunes you can already do playlists with SMIL embed inside of QuickTime files. (I.e., with SMILtext.) With Miro... it uses XiphQT. And XiphQT supports XSPF. And XSPF is a playlist format. So both iTunes and Miro already support playlists! As far as users just not downloading any video clip (in the playlist) less than 60 seconds long... just divide up all you content to less that 60 second long clips. (Or at least do this for significant chunks of your video.) That way this strategy won't work. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 8:34 AM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I suppose my point is about what apps the viewers are using to consume the feed. Non-browser video aggregators would need to be specially designed to support feeds with adverts in them, and if its done with open standards, its fairly trivial for people to use non-compliant aggregators that thwart the advertising. Whether that just means the users never click on the advert content to play it in the first place, or settings such as 'assume all content less than 60 seconds long in this feed is an ad', or users syncing only the main content with the device they want to watch the videos on, or others forms of playlist manipulation, it sure seems flawed to me. How are you going to get people to even use aggregators that support ads, when people have things like Miro and itunes they can use? Thats why I was placing emphasis on flash, because a flash app can act as an aggregator, using proprietary playlists or whatever behind the scenes, but without the user having the ability to plug those feeds into a player that does not honour the ad system. For downloadable video, it seems to me that the adverts have to be built into the main content video itself, or the necessary control just isnt there? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flash-delivered video (as you call it) is a *video player*. And thus is not video. I.e., Flash-delivered video is similar to the Windows Media Player, the QuickTime Player, VLC. (It's basically a Flash-based video player... similar to a Java-applet based video player.) But it is not video. I.e., it is not a video file. The FLV file that these Flash-based video players play are the videos. (But we may be just arguing semantics.) And... as far as blocking ads in playlists just mark some of the actual content to be downloaded at the last minute too (like the ads)... so that if the user automatically blocks anything that is marked to download at the last minute to block the ads... then they end up blocking parts of the content too which makes auto-ad-blockers software impossible. This doesn't stop them from fast-forwarding through the ad (which is fine... because if the user really doesn't watch that particular ad, then it's a bad idea to try to force them). But that requires the user action and is much different than automated software that blocks every single ad no matter what (so the user doesn't even see them even if they would have been interested in it). See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 1:26 AM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In what way is flash-deluvered video not really video? Surely its one of the few methods that gives advertisers creators the necessary control? If adverts are delivered based on RSS playlists, then someone like me who despises adverts, will have a lot easier time stripping the pollution of ads from the content I actualy want to watch? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux supercanadian@ wrote: Now... to side step this 2 pronged RSS enclosure problem, you could not bother using the RSS enclosure and just send a Flash-based video player or a Java-based video player instead... but... that's not really video. And, although it may be a solution in the short term... it's going to cause us problems in the long run. So it's important to get this RSS enclosure, playlist, pre-fetching thing right now IMO. There's alot more that could be said... but I'll end this here. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] HD quality on YouTube
I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it won't get transcoded. It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was uploaded. On Feb 13, 2008 11:19 AM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This link is NSFW, but anybody have any ideas how to get higher bitrate encodes out of YouTube. The video quality is amazing compared to everything else on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/nudisthdtvcom Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Verizon... Old News but frustrating...
Sounds like you're well within their terms of use. Could it be your location? I would speak to my neighbors to find out if they're getting more reliable connections from different providers. On Feb 12, 2008 10:33 AM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.wireless-weblog.com/50226711/ verizon_wireless_unlimited_evdo_data_plan_is_limited.php I'm getting kicked offline continuously these days. I wonder if this is affecting me. I'm not using much bandwidth, but I sure am doing more than checking email and surfing the net. I'm connecting to my host server and uploading 50+ MB weekly. I'm not DL much, as it's too friggin' slow out here in the sticks. I'm online constantly developing my sites and my connection is on nearly all the time. I don't think I'm using the internet inappropriately. From the Man: Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine–to–machine connections or peer–to–peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services and/or redirecting television signals for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one hour, could typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a month. For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term. Verizon Wireless Plans, Rate and Coverage Areas, rates, agreement provisions, business practices, procedures and policies are subject to change as specified in the Customer Agreement. Last Update 03/15/07 link: http://b2b.vzw.com/broadband/bba_terms.html; I guess it's time to ditch Verizon. Anyone have any suggestions for cellular internet? A friend told me about Alltel. Perhaps Chad will be better to me than the 'can you hear me now guy. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: While I respect what he's saying, because he's the one with the company that deals with the business end of making money off of people that make videos, I don't think lack of content is the problem here. The problem *now* is what I've BEEN saying the problem is, which is that without a way to figure out whether suburban males with lawns that are likely to buy a lawnmower are tuning in to your show, you can't sell advertising to lawnmower manufacturers. To say that there isn't enough content for companies to advertise on doesn't take into account that there's tons of content that NOBODY wants to advertise on because of lack of perceived ROI. That's what's so funny about this video boom. People are rushing to make a site where people are going to get on the bandwagon and upload UGC and they think they're going to make all this money from it, when in reality, they don't know JACK about video, they don't know JACK about building, growing and maintaining an audience, they don't know JACK about creating, advertising or moderating a social site... All they know is that there's gold in them thar hills! :D Get them a pan. There's CONTENT being made every single day, just on youtube alone. The point is that none of it's monetizable because you can't tell
Re: [videoblogging] Blip Pro Account
At http://blip.tv/prefs there should be a retry button next to the video in question. And you can get faster responses from us if you e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! Sheldon Pineo wrote: Ok, I bit the bullet and bought a pro account. Now, how do I re-encode a video. Episode 30 (http://blip.tv/file/660015/) is still missing the last 1:21. Thanks. Shel.
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
One thing. When I said that some court somewhere ruled that cable/dsl were not subject to common carrier rules, the truth is the FCC made that ruling, not any court. ... richard On Feb 13, 2008 12:54 PM, Richard H. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pat, I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to be smart and take into account different data types and route/shape accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that. Here's the deal/misunderstanding. According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type - they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me). About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of ISP if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you have a service monopoly on the lines already built. ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what network neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
Interesting article for sure :) All my mesages on this subject have really been about trying to untangle multiple issues that come under the 'net neutrality' banner. My attitude is probably shaped by the fact that traffic shaping, bandwidth limits, and such like, are not new to the UK. One of the things I admire about the USA and its citizens, is that there seems to be a clearer sense of what your rights should be, not that this prevents those rights being watered down, but at least its something. Some bandwidth issues can be overcome by more investment, but that wont eliminate issues such as what you do about the minority who may use a large proportion of the available network, no mater how large it is. Peer2peer could be seen as a suitable target, not just because so much of that traffic is pirated material, but because its use of bandwidth is a major headache for the networks. I imagine it is not fun to watch the traffic bottlenecks on your network, see your customer experience degraded, see how certain sorts of traffic are responsible, and feel unable to do anything. Now that there are some very large legitimate uses for peer2peer, eg many UK broadcasters and Joost, the issue only gets more complicated and more of a problem for the networks, who may want to pass some of hat problem on to their users. Despite anything I may have said recently, I am very strongly against metered access, limits etc, unless the cap is placed way above what 95% of people could possibly be in danger of using in a month. Why woulld it be unfair to then charge the other 5% more or throttle their speed for a while? I am also strongly against the non-neutral net nightmare where networks give preferential treatment to traffic from certain sites, that they have a commercial relationship with. This nightmare does not keep me awake at night though, because I believe that neutrality on that front is pretty key to the internet as we know it, and the people, governments and many companies have an interest in maintaining that sort of internet. I shouldnt be complacent all the same, but it is enough to make me laugh at notions that the little guy is being crushed on these issues. We've never had the sought of internet where people could host their own servers off their home boroadband connection, and expect to get the same level of performance as servers connected to the net via bigger pipes designed for that purpose. Years ago UK ISPs had a battle with a small minority of users who thought they had the right to do that, some people got warned or had their connections cancelled. Peer2peer is not so very different in terms of the impact on the network, and what the companies would like to do about it. Id like to know more about whether people really think they have the right to leave their computer uploading and downloading to multiple other users, 2 hours a day? Do people think there should be enough road capacity to enable everyone to drive round 24/7 without being hampered by other traffic or other limitations, be they legal, financial or otherwise? Anyway I think Ive said more than enough about my opinions on this issue, I will continue to reserve most of my network scorn for the mobile phone networks, that really are far more draconian and think they are going to maintain far more control over traffic, try to get more money, amputate users freedoms etc etc. If the net beomes like that then it will obviously be a huge loss, but despite the challenges to bandwidth that video poses, I still hope that the future will be the mobile networks becoming more like the net, rather than the other way around. Oh and I still got confused by some of the coffee-shop analogies offered, because I dont see the networks as being in the business of providing video content, thus they are not being forced to allow competitors to use their network, the days where they thought the 'portal' would make them rich, are over. That article pointed out where I am wrong on this issues though, namely where the net provider to your house also provides cable tv to your house, they have a potential conflict of interest. Still that also makes me think it would be a real tragedy if video breaks the net, when theres all the other infrastructure already in place to deliver digital video, albeit thousands of channels of mostly crap. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth
[videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: URL hotspots in the video is also essential for product placement for new tab opening when the end-user clicks on it. What are your thoughts on this? This will be the future of web video for sure. Adobe Media Player should make this a more viable option with an interactive Flash layer over H264 video. Enhanced podcasts come close to this in some ways, but I haven't seen any that use that technology for 'traditional' advertising. I'm sure the minds of advertisers have to be changed/convinced that web video is worthwhile avenue for advertising on. As has been mentioned already it comes down to ROI for them. I think old school ad mentality dictates that broad advertising to a vast audience in the hope that a small percentage of those viewers react to the ad. The new school will be slivercasting to highly targeted niche audiences, that will obviously be much much smaller. Once advertisers can be convinced that bigger is not necessarily better it should really beneftit a web video show with a small but loyal niche audience. We're seeing it with Ask A Ninja a little bit (maybe others I'm not aware of) but those eyeballs are still valuable. The Beer School podcast for instance. You know right there what demographic is subscribing to that show. Any number of advertisers would be smart to buy ad space/sponsor it. It will get there, but the wheels of industry turn slowly... adam
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the ground for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have the first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn it over to a flock of free-riding competitors. Or for the first company to foist the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer. this is crazy to me. this is like saying that everyone can make their own power plants nd run lines all over town. (and charge for that power) everyone can make their own water companies and dig up the ground for pipes. (and charge for their use) or everyone can make their own roads. (and charge for their use) Can I make my own army? in any society, we must agree on basic resources that are common to us all. investor owned companies whose mission is pure profit is not a solution to every problem. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Richard H. Hall wrote: About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building lines through public right aways and such. It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the ground for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have the first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn it over to a flock of free-riding competitors. Or for the first company to foist the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer.
Re: [videoblogging] HD quality on YouTube
That's awesome if it's true. I don't have time to test this right now, but I would love to know if it works. -- *Adam Quirk* / Producer, Wreck Salvage LLC / [EMAIL PROTECTED] /+1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Feb 13, 2008 12:41 PM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it won't get transcoded. It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was uploaded. On Feb 13, 2008 11:19 AM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This link is NSFW, but anybody have any ideas how to get higher bitrate encodes out of YouTube. The video quality is amazing compared to everything else on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/nudisthdtvcom Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Jay dedman wrote: this is crazy to me. this is like saying that everyone can make their own power plants nd run lines all over town. (and charge for that power) everyone can make their own water companies and dig up the ground for pipes. (and charge for their use) or everyone can make their own roads. (and charge for their use) I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can be installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There really is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks. You might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout. Can I make my own army? Why not? You wouldn't be the first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company#U.S._companies
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially) I think you simplify the problem though. What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and downloading movies every night from iTunes? suddenly we all become that 5%. So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network, rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies. if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these conversations should be done out on the open. if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to another competitor. A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers. This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything depends on...so there should be a level playing field. Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric companies get). This is not a new practice. In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network and open access to these lines. People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online. Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly. Usually just one or two carriers in each area. They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public. they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some legalese in their TOS (or not). Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc. so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies, the also owned the movie theaters. It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies. Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly. The studios eventually had to sell their theaters. Independent film and theaters could then flourish. I dont want rules. I want everyone, including companies, to be free. But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the network is also open. I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say, we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with our own media. Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and its customers. everyone feels good. Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws with lobbyists. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc. so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies, the also owned the movie theaters. It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies. Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly. The studios eventually had to sell their theaters. Independent film and theaters could then flourish. here the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures%2C_Inc. really interesting history for opening up the movie industry. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Excellent post Richard. I didn't realize some net neutrality bills being pushed allowed for that. Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard H. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pat, I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to be smart and take into account different data types and route/shape accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that. Here's the deal/misunderstanding. According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type - they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me). About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of ISP if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you have a service monopoly on the lines already built. ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what network neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of
[videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
Great post, thanks for the clarity :) Here in the UK, we have choice about both the telephone voice provider, and the ISP used for DSL, even though the phone lines, exchanges other infrastructure was built by British Telecom. They were a state-owned monopoly when they built most of it, who were then privatised. Then their monopoly control was reduced, by forcing them to offer 'local loop unbundling', which meant otehr companies could come into their phone excahnges and take over the wires of customers who wanted to switch. Plus even if people stay with BT for their phone line rental and/or voice calls, they can choose different DSL ISPs to go with. CableTV-based broadband is firmly in control of whoever put the wires in, but as there is pretty much only 1 cable company in the UK now, theres no choice there anyway. The same applies to Electricity and Gas here too, even though the infrastructure to your house doesnt change, we can choose to be billed by different companies. A side effect of this is an annoying level of door-to-door salesmen trying to get you to switch providers every 5 minutes. All of this choice has brought some advantages to consumers, although much of it could be psychological, at least people do not feel completely powerless if they get bad service or price, they can switch and feel a little better even if the new company screws them eventually as well. If a single monopoly or government entity controlled it all and their was no choice, the overall service price efficiency might not be as bad as free marketeers might have you believe, but there would be no pressure valve that allowed peoples frustrations to be eased a little. Maybe the same applies in terms of democracy ;) Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard H. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pat, I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to be smart and take into account different data types and route/shape accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that. Here's the deal/misunderstanding. According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type - they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me). About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of ISP if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you have a service monopoly on the lines already built. ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what network neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I really don't want to see ISP's to be in bed with the Government. well, if we're afraid of our governments then we're all screwed. I know some already think this. But at least we're supposed to be able to affect government policy. you cant affect a private company's policy especially if they are is a monopoly situation. And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these Socialist type programs.) I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to make things happen but it's an entirely different thing to (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs. everyone, including companies, pay taxes. Its how we pay for things around us. I know this is a controversial issue for many (including Wesley Snipes) By letting the water company and electric company pay lower taxes, they can have more to invest in their infrastructure. Same could be said for broadband providers if we, as a people, agreed these were important services for the running of society. Since everyone is paying to access these services, there is huge guaranteed profits to be reaped. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to) build better networks for those paying for it. If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise, they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more now before we all become the 5%. NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it. Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS would probably be illegal) As for anti-competitive stuff. The article that began this discussion talks about how an ISP blocked Vonage but was forced to stop. Of course I wouldn't be in favour of this being legal. On Feb 13, 2008 3:01 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. agreed. They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher upload speed) I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will certainly stifle innovation and commercialism. Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio? every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play. (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic limit) It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?) If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? great question. I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now. They are private company and can do anything they want. (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me) Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX SxS Pro HD Camcorder
Has anyone used Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX SxS Pro HD Camcorder. I am thinking of purchasing it and was wondering if anyone had any positive or negative feedback. hmmm...love to hear anyone's experience. here's a link: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamEX_index.shtml new to me. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Music in the Public Domain.
I have just expanded the site and found a bunch of links to Music in the Public Domain. Not just old stuff, but music that people have created and specifically put in the Public Domain. What is good about Music in the Public Domain? You can use it anyway you want, and there are no restrictions! We all know that video blogs need music, so anywhere you can find copyright free, free music is good. Anyway, go check out the site I just re-launched, http://feltonjamhouse.com thanks Greg. Public Domain is the ultimate love. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
[videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: = iTunes won't take that FLV file will they? iTunes is all mp4, isn't it? Chris iTunes uses MP3, MP4(H264), MOV or DRMed m4v (video) or m4a (audio)
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can be installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There really is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks. You might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout. so you want to only have 3 or 5? why cant there be a 150? any citizen should be allowed to build their network. I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people on my network. fuck you. this is freedom. This is why its outrageous. People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation that benefits them. Regulation is about benefiting all citizens. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 11:48 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers. This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything depends on...so there should be a level playing field. Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric companies get). This is not a new practice. (Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are say, but) I really don't want to see ISP's to be in bed with the Government. And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these Socialist type programs.) I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to make things happen but it's an entirely different thing to (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. agreed. They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher upload speed) I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will certainly stifle innovation and commercialism. Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio? every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play. (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic limit) It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?) If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? great question. I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now. They are private company and can do anything they want. (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me) Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would be great to have more transparency. Even enforced transparency if it makes sense to do so. Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though? Should you be fighting for this instead of net neutrality? It seems like if this isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not something anyone should truly set their sights on. So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite using the same infrastructure? That's bad. On Feb 13, 2008 2:48 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially) I think you simplify the problem though. What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and downloading movies every night from iTunes? suddenly we all become that 5%. So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network, rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies. if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these conversations should be done out on the open. if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to another competitor. A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers. This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything depends on...so there should be a level playing field. Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric companies get). This is not a new practice. In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network and open access to these lines. People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online. Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly. Usually just one or two carriers in each area. They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public. they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some legalese in their TOS (or not). Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc. so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies, the also owned the movie theaters. It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies. Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly. The studios eventually had to sell their theaters. Independent film and theaters could then flourish. I dont want rules. I want everyone, including companies, to be free. But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the network is also open. I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say, we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with our own media. Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and its customers. everyone feels good. Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws with lobbyists. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to) build better networks for those paying for it. i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where broadband companies are not making enormous profits already? you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need help. If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise, they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more now before we all become the 5%. hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can be...so we must limit. again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure. i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway. NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it. Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS would probably be illegal) its called the highest bidder. If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want. and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need to transmit fine? what is the definition of transmit fine? 56k 128k 512k where is the standard? you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith. recent history shows that they seem to only become transparent when forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case). again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to fight for what that means. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would be great to have more transparency. Even enforced transparency if it makes sense to do so. Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though? Should you be fighting for this instead of net neutrality? It seems like if this isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not something anyone should truly set their sights on. let me read Markey's bill to be make sure it doesnt have some of these things in it already. the biggest problem is that private companies will not willingly agree to limits to their profits. the broadband companies have spent years getting to this point. Markey may just be trying to at least keep some neutrality in these commercial systems. a far less radical solution. again, be great if these companies voluntarily agreed to be open and for the good of everyone. dont see it happening which os why all the noise and anger happens. So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite using the same infrastructure? That's bad. starting in the early 1960's, independent cable operators made deals with local regions to lay down their cables. They were given monopoly contracts to make sure they could make their money back since its so expensive and messy to lay cables. Starting in the 80's, the huge movement to consolidate happened. These small independent, regional cable operators were bought upso we just have the big ones now. BUT these monopoly status of the contracts still exist. I guess cities could revoke these contracts (unless theyve been signed for 50 years or something). As Charles advocates, cities could start letting other companies tear up the streets to lay their own networks. then we'd have competition. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Jay dedman wrote: I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can be installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There really is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks. You might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout. so you want to only have 3 or 5? why cant there be a 150? any citizen should be allowed to build their network. Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number of companies, although never just one. I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people on my network. fuck you. this is freedom. You should definitely be free to establish ridiculous company policies which will knock your company out of business. This is why its outrageous. What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the foot if they choose? Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies, due to legislation. Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a monopoly, and have two solutions before us. We can remove their monopoly status. Or we can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we find out saccharin makes people gain weight.) I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The fact that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to successfully tamper with markets. Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists. It is not a machine designed by a team of engineers. I find something very suburban in this denial of nature.
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 11:52 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can be installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There really is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks. You might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout. so you want to only have 3 or 5? why cant there be a 150? any citizen should be allowed to build their network. I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people on my network. fuck you. this is freedom. This is why its outrageous. People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation that benefits them. Regulation is about benefiting all citizens. A free market has no market regulation (by definition). See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Viddler's New Video Comment Plug-In
Ive always been a big fan of video on the net becoming a far more integrated procedure, doable from the browser, easily, by people who dont normally use a video camera. Its ideally suited to video conversations and comments, and if done right it is easy enough to catch on, just so long as people can stand to see themselves in video. If you dont get much response here, the following could be reasons why: People have service fatigue and want control, hence signing up to another service may be a turnoff. To generalise, theres a bias towards content produced on video camera edited etc, rather than web camera talking-head uses of video, so for example when youtube introduced similar video recording/conversation features, it wasnt talked about here at length. Another example would be the long conversation here recently about a video comment system underlying technologies, which talked about so many issues, but not much about how to make this end of the video commenting process more seamless and attractive to would-be commenters. This may be partly because people have looked before at the tech required to do flash-based in-browser recording, and seeing the server requirements, feel that a 3rd party will always be needed, but they dont want to use one. If a service came along that did it all right, but also went further and offered a mechanism that enabled site-owners to host the video responses themselves, it could help get some serious momentum, Im not sure. Control of data is certainly a big issue in the era of web services. As per one of my warblings a few weeks ago, I believe services will succeed in the longrun by setting data free. A system where the user can choose many different companies to perform different functions for them when it comes to collecting, storing and representing their data, all whislt still being in control of it all, and able to switch any of the providers easily. Right now there are some areas where this is already true, albeit not hassle-free, I hope it continues along this path. I do wonder if video comments will attract much stronger human concerns about ownership control, than text ones do. If I post a comment somewhere, who owns or controls it? The site I posted it on, me, or the company that provided the technical infrastructure/hosting? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Clintus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys, wanted to share this with you because I'm super excited about it. Viddler has released a small beta of their video comment plug-in for wordpress which I am now using (testing) on my site. You can see it in action on my latest vlog post: http://www.idoitdigital.com/2008/02/11/moments-dec07-jan08 http://www.idoitdigital.com/2008/02/11/moments-dec07-jan08 I really love this because you can record a video right there on my site, or the site you're leaving the comment on. Also, if you don't have a viddler account you can create one in the same pop-up box as well; meaning you never have to leave the site :) So if you get a chance, take a look at it and give a try. Colin is releasing the first patch later today to fix the first set of bugs we've identified, but so far I'm loving it. Here is Colin's original post about it as well: http://cdevroe.com/notes/videocomment-test http://cdevroe.com/notes/videocomment-test [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any business sense. It makes more sense to place limitations or charge more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently, they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make a lot of sense. As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better infrastructure. Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers, there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same speeds. On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to) build better networks for those paying for it. i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where broadband companies are not making enormous profits already? you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need help. If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise, they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more now before we all become the 5%. hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can be...so we must limit. again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure. i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway. NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it. Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS would probably be illegal) its called the highest bidder. If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want. and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need to transmit fine? what is the definition of transmit fine? 56k 128k 512k where is the standard? you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith. recent history shows that they seem to only become transparent when forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case). again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to fight for what that means. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Milt and the Chicago School are OK but they are the weaker branch of the free-market advocates. If you want the real deal, who lack these inconsistencies you note, look to Von Mises and the Austrian School. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises ill one up you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_N._Rothbard (you know he was Mises' student) Rothbard criticized the frenzied nihilism of left-wing libertarians but also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order bring about liberty. anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism. lets do it! we all get our own army! jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: HD quality on YouTube
I believe this is true. The nudie video looked very good indeed. YouTube limits uploads to 100MB (does it still work that way, been a while) so they are not limiting DATA RATE. The nudie vids were 10mins long which is quite long, but if you encode down to H264 at a pretty high quality BEFORE uploading to YT I have heard you can get a lot more band for your 100MB buck. Also, using a dedicated FLV encoder to do a 2-pass Variable Bit Rate encode will yield much better quality than the generic YT upload default. I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it won't get transcoded. It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was uploaded.
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
It worked so poorly with the highway system, didn't it? I don't want to see them in bed with the government either which is why I decry the current situation. They are in bed, in private with the government today. I want them in the open and on the streets with the People. I believe that is the common carriers concept. Government isn't inherently bad. Our current government is terrible. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 11:48 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers. This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything depends on...so there should be a level playing field. Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/ electric companies get). This is not a new practice. (Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are say, but) I really don't want to see ISP's to be in bed with the Government. And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these Socialist type programs.) I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to make things happen but it's an entirely different thing to (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation that benefits them. Regulation is about benefiting all citizens. A free market has no market regulation (by definition). absolutely correct. I put free market in quotes because all the proponents of this term never truly lived by their own preachings. Good old Uncle Milt is a great example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] everyone, including companies, pay taxes. Its how we pay for things around us. It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that for... it doesn't have to be that way. We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free market, than things paid for via tax money. If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not to use their services or purchase their products. If they're doing something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have this same reaction. This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business. People can even choose to even start their own company and compete with this company directly. And thus providing an alternative. The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot and looses their business (unless they change their ways). However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we do about it? Nothing! And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change things. First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change anything. But second... let's assume voting does change things... well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of change. And you get one shot at it. (We essentially have 4 year dictatorships.) That's NOT better than a free market. I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are (for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from arising. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number of companies, although never just one. you got to be joking me. Think the early part of the 20th century before anti-trust laws. The Free Market created near-monopolies in almost every sector. Hollywood, Steel, Oil, Rubber. Without any market regulation, a rich man (usually always men) can do anything they want. a free market does not mean competition. What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the foot if they choose? Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies, due to legislation. Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a monopoly, and have two solutions before us. We can remove their monopoly status. Or we can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we find out saccharin makes people gain weight.) I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The fact that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to successfully tamper with markets. Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists. It is not a machine designed by a team of engineers. I find something very suburban in this denial of nature. i hear you Charles. I dont agree that we cant work as a society. Legislation evolves with the time. Any problems occur usually because commercial interests write their own legislation (think Prescription Drugs bill that the Republicans passed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug%2C_Improvement%2C_and_Modernization_Act) Tell me where this dream of freedom is being lived where there are no need for laws and people live together in common sense. im there. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 12:33 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation that benefits them. Regulation is about benefiting all citizens. A free market has no market regulation (by definition). absolutely correct. I put free market in quotes because all the proponents of this term never truly lived by their own preachings. Good old Uncle Milt is a great example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places. Yeah I could go off about him for a while :-) He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Jay dedman wrote: People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation that benefits them. Regulation is about benefiting all citizens. A free market has no market regulation (by definition). absolutely correct. I put free market in quotes because all the proponents of this term never truly lived by their own preachings. Good old Uncle Milt is a great example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places. Milt and the Chicago School are OK but they are the weaker branch of the free-market advocates. If you want the real deal, who lack these inconsistencies you note, look to Von Mises and the Austrian School. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Viddler's New Video Comment Plug-In
I do wonder if video comments will attract much stronger human concerns about ownership control, than text ones do. If I post a comment somewhere, who owns or controls it? The site I posted it on, me, or the company that provided the technical infrastructure/hosting? text is an open system. it may be on your service, but its easy enough to copy and paste. not true for video. Id be down with a video commenting plugin that let me choose which service I were to use. Viddler, youtube, revver, or any service that wants to offer video comments. Itd also be cool if video sites didnt lock their videos in the page so it could easily copiable as text. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
On Feb 13, 2008 2:24 PM, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists. It is not a machine designed by a team of engineers. Make no mistake, economics and the free market are a game, which has no meaning without context and rules, like any other game. The argument is just about what those rules should be. ... Richard -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Not to mention the cost to the consumer of advertising. Right now, in the unlimited model, advertising is free, meaning we get to see flashy ads on every page. Throttle down the bandwidth consumption with caps and ads become more than an eyesore, they become an expense for the consumer. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Jay dedman wrote: Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. agreed. They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher upload speed) I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will certainly stifle innovation and commercialism. Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio? every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play. (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic limit) It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?) If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? great question. I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now. They are private company and can do anything they want. (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me) Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
If these free market fantasies were ever allowed to come to true fruition, then the true horros of that 'natural state' would become apparent. But because there never has, nor ever will be a free market of this sort, and this can be blamed upon government, its easy to make that ideology sound rosy. All of the distortions and non-freeness of the market is in fact part of the nature of humans, how else did it come to be this way? Game theory is not an accurate model of human behaviour. Not everyone bahaves by those rules, there is a C called collaboration that counterbalances the C of competition. Both of these forces do great good and great harm. All entities with power, use that power for good and for harm, whatever they feel their intentions are. It seems to me that both left-wing and right-wing, pro collective or pro individual ideologies, if carried to their extreme, run the risk of creating power vacuum, and replacing the power of the state with the laws of the jungle, and some brutal local mafia as the power that controls your life. I believe in the public I belieive in public institutions I beleive not everything can or should have a direct profit extracted from it, a collective profit has advantages, even for companies of all shapes and sizes. Yet there are overwhelming reasons to be cynical about these things I believe in, just as there is plenty that makes me shake my head at the free market fantasies. The crisis in credibility of democratic government is something to be feared more than the government itself. Much worse forms of command control could be unleashed by fundamentalists who seek to totally eliminate their chosen scapegoat. These arguments could rage eternal, unless resource depletion puts the gods of growth and competition into serious doubt, and makes the free market dream a nightmare that is permanently beyond reach. United we stand, divided we fall, but we may never find a mutually acceptable means of uniting. A free market is one vision of humans interacting, but its no more 'the natural way' than centralised government control is. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] everyone, including companies, pay taxes. Its how we pay for things around us. It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that for... it doesn't have to be that way. We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free market, than things paid for via tax money. If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not to use their services or purchase their products. If they're doing something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have this same reaction. This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business. People can even choose to even start their own company and compete with this company directly. And thus providing an alternative. The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot and looses their business (unless they change their ways). However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we do about it? Nothing! And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change things. First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change anything. But second... let's assume voting does change things... well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of change. And you get one shot at it. (We essentially have 4 year dictatorships.) That's NOT better than a free market. I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are (for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from arising. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash
I'll chip in with my 2 cents here as it varies from the populace it seems. To export 16:9 FLV from anamorphic DV (your 720x480) your final video size will need to be 854x480. It sounds like VisualHub may do this for you. I do my encoding in Telestream Episode, as it does batch encoding to a gazzilion formats. Its not cheap but the quality is great and the level of control you get is astounding. I set my bit rates pretty low and my picture size is still small, but if you wanted to full frame with your video you could get good quality from VP6 FLV (Flash8). Here are a couple of quick sampples I just spat out of Episode. Used built in templates, no tweeking so they could be optimized a little. I noticed the playback of the 720 version is a little jerky. Don't know why right now. But the spacial and temporal quality holds up pretty well. 1280x720 FLV at 3500kbps 2-pass VBR http://influxx.com/public/Scene9_1280x720.flv 854x480 FLV at 2000kbps 2-pass VBR http://influxx.com/public/Scene9_854x480.flv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to blip? I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage. I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y) and am hoping to have more success. I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file. We've got great cameras and great high motion footage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
What's the ROI on our interstate highway system? on our local and national parks? on our water supplies? on our public universities? Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] everyone, including companies, pay taxes. Its how we pay for things around us. It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that for... it doesn't have to be that way. We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free market, than things paid for via tax money. If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not to use their services or purchase their products. If they're doing something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have this same reaction. This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business. People can even choose to even start their own company and compete with this company directly. And thus providing an alternative. The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot and looses their business (unless they change their ways). However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we do about it? Nothing! And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change things. First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change anything. But second... let's assume voting does change things... well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of change. And you get one shot at it. (We essentially have 4 year dictatorships.) That's NOT better than a free market. I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are (for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from arising. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 1:11 PM, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely not. When steel and oil were monopolies, did people pay $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace unless they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite prices because there are always alternatives at hand. True, but even in the intro to economics class at business school, it's demonstrated that, in a monopoly market, the price and quantity produced are based entirely on the monopolist's ability to maximize price as a price setter. Without effective competition, utility is not maximized on the demand-side. This is an inefficiency. You can easily see this demonstrated in recent history with the Bell System. Bell is not an example of an entity in a free market. Bell obtained a government-enforced monopoly through the patent system and government regulations and licensing that (effectively) prevented other companies from entering the market to compete against Bell. In some countries (like in Europe), there were laws in place that mandated that only one specific company was allow to provide telephone services. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
Your post was very interesting, Im still learning about economics, could you explain this stuff about externalities? Does it have anything to do with, for example, if the finite nature of resources was factored into the price from the start, the masses may never have got to command the equivalent of thousands of horses to move them around? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I see here is externalities. If the costs of externalities were baked into every transaction, this would be true. All too often, it's not. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
[videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
Yes thats because my assertion was wrong. I got confused about what dislike about Game Theory. I probably dont understand it well enough to correct myself, I just dont think social darwinism completely explains behaviour, and I thought that often even when game theory looks at colabborative situations, its cant quite get away from certain beliefs that people are really always competing. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah...I didn't understand the assertion, either. Game theory absolutely can be used to demonstrate when multiple parties will collaborate or collude. In fact, game theory models explain at what level of personal gain a party can be expected to cheat on a collusion. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Absolutely not. When steel and oil were monopolies, did people pay $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace unless they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite prices because there are always alternatives at hand. its not just about cheap price. its also about quality, safety, and the net benefit to society. Remember those bedtime stories about people who bought putrid meat. and this was normal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle Sinclair's account of workers falling into meat processing tanks and being ground, along with animal parts, into Durham's Pure Leaf Lard, gripped public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions as well as the exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed, showed the corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories. Foreign sales of American meat fell by one-half. In order to calm public outrage and demonstrate the cleanliness of their meat, the major meat packers lobbied the Federal government to pass legislation paying for additional inspection and certification of meat packaged in the United States. [2] Their efforts, coupled with the public outcry, led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration. Then what prevents new entrants from coming in and profiting from the greed of the monopoly? Secrecy, men with guns, false imprisonment of competitors, manipulation of the legal process, control of the press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_B._Gowen I'm not suggesting no law at all. I'm suggesting no laws that violate human rights. If somebody wants to sell their service, and somebody else wants to pay for it, prohibition should be out of the question. Basic human dignity, which somehow gets lost in the abstract utopian rhetoric. totally agreed. this works for many things. But the libertarian argument falls apart when it comes to shared, public services like military, roads, water, electricity, public transportation, and I contend...broadband internet. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
Game theory is actually very cold and mathematical and doesn't actually have to focus on people at all. It simply assumes that any agent in the system, given an understanding about what benefits it gets from each action, selects the action that has the chance to create the best benefit. It's a study of how local decisions create global states, nothing more. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Yes thats because my assertion was wrong. I got confused about what dislike about Game Theory. I probably dont understand it well enough to correct myself, I just dont think social darwinism completely explains behaviour, and I thought that often even when game theory looks at colabborative situations, its cant quite get away from certain beliefs that people are really always competing. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah...I didn't understand the assertion, either. Game theory absolutely can be used to demonstrate when multiple parties will collaborate or collude. In fact, game theory models explain at what level of personal gain a party can be expected to cheat on a collusion. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
An externality can be thought of as a side effect. The basic principle of market economics is that the costs of the production and consumption of a good are reflected in the price paid. This is generally called a price signal, and it's why free and frictionless markets are so good at moving to equilibrium. The problem, however, is that externalities are generally things that fly under our radars. For example, for a very long time, all forms of air pollution went without any regulation or oversight. In essence, it was free to belch soot into the air. Eventually, this created both public health and environmental issues. Because the human cost of the pollution was never placed into the cost of making the goods/energy that produced the pollution, people were effectively paying too little for their goods, and the result was that an excess of pollution ended up having a cost in other ways. A core belief in the right to unregulated commerce is that if I sell it and someone buys it, it's our right to do, but if the service or production of the good has an effect on third parties, then the libertarian notion of not forcing others is broken and requires attention. This, for many of us, is the argument for regulation, oversight, and the general existence of the democratic state. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Your post was very interesting, Im still learning about economics, could you explain this stuff about externalities? Does it have anything to do with, for example, if the finite nature of resources was factored into the price from the start, the masses may never have got to command the equivalent of thousands of horses to move them around? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I see here is externalities. If the costs of externalities were baked into every transaction, this would be true. All too often, it's not. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
And who gets to decide if something is a benefit to society or not? we the people, and the representatives we elect. I hear you charles. Current governments certainly dont seem to work well. The corrupting influences are enormous. But I fear just tearing it all down, hoping people act for the good of the whole, with no alternative structuremight be worse. one day, it may come to that. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Bell is not an example of an entity in a free market. Bell obtained a government-enforced monopoly through the patent system and government regulations and licensing that (effectively) prevented other companies from entering the market to compete against Bell. In some countries (like in Europe), there were laws in place that mandated that only one specific company was allow to provide telephone services. It doesn't matter how a monopoly forms. You can use the same predictive models for pricing and aggregate output regardless. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any business sense. this just might be where you and I disagree. I contend (as does most of the industry) that tomorrow's 95% will be today's 5%. Broadband companies MUST expand the network. Putting false limits based on bandwidth now stifles innovation. again, i think we just read the situation differently. It makes more sense to place limitations or charge more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently, they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make a lot of sense. as i said, as a customer, Id love to hear what these companies have in mind. so far, all their thinking and decisions are being made behind closed doors. they are not encouraging our trust. If the limit is 200GB each month. I can live with that. but the dark part of me imagines their accounting offices crunching the numbers to see what the pain point is. how much will people pay and not complain? ever look at your bank/credit card fees? (probably not...too small) But Patrick, I will be positive like you. we'll wait and see. lets remember this conversation when the details come out. As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better infrastructure. cool. then there's nothing to worry about. we just trust them. (have they earned your trust?) Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers, there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same speeds. sounds good. is this in writing somewhere? All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all depend on. right now, its all arbitrary..and dependent on the whims of the broadband providers. They COULD behave reasonably as you suggest. They COULD behave in their own self-interest as the presiding fear is. Fun! Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Hello, On Feb 13, 2008 2:05 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely not. When steel and oil were monopolies, did people pay $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace unless they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite prices because there are always alternatives at hand. its not just about cheap price. its also about quality, safety, and the net benefit to society. And who gets to decide if something is a benefit to society or not? See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I would tend to agree, too. Just look at the history of rural electrification to see the failure of private industry and market forces to electrify rural areas, a critical step in providing the society we now enjoy. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime But the libertarian argument falls apart when it comes to shared, public services like military, roads, water, electricity, public transportation, and I contend...broadband internet. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Viddler's New Video Comment Plug-In
embed code? but you prob are referring to video remixability. On Feb 13, 2008 3:47 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Itd also be cool if video sites didnt lock their videos in the page so it could easily copiable as text. Jay [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising
Hi Tim, It been over a year downloadablemedia.org has been around. I would like to hear what practical results have been achieved that bring independent producers closer to advertisers. Thanks --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Renat, I wish I could say that everything you talk about was easy to do and that we could just flip a switch and have it all be perfect and work for every independent producer - but that's just not the way it is. There are a few of us that are trying to make several of those things you write about happen for independents but it's going to take time and help from everyone. It's easy to complain about the situation but if you are really interested in bringing advertisers and content producers together I urge you to join the Association of Downloadable Media http://www.downloadablemedia.org/ and sign up to attend Ad-tech in San Francisco in April 15-17 http://tinyurl.com/3cg6g6 The ADM will be offering a substantial discount to the event and there will be some steps taken in the direction you are talking about. Rome wasn't built at an advertising conference and all are problems won't be solved there either but if you can attend you will be surrounded by other people who want to see independent content creators and advertisers come together. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 12, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Your words are golden Bill. Only good content is king, rather than just any content. Just because content is created doesn't mean it's worth watching. On another note though, I am surprised that none of the companies, including blip, takes notice about what the producers need to monetize online shows, they only look at the scenery of online video from their software programming mindset. And when they flip, they wonder what they did wrong... It's all about usability testing!!! Put yourself in the shoes of the end-user and see if you will resonate to the existing video ad approaches. Big advertising platform creators like Maven networks and Move networks have it tailored for huge Fox-like corporations to be smoothly transforming their traditional TV content to the web. However, there's no company with a practical solution that does that for the independent producers. Does that mean that the future of online video advertising is only for the established TV brands? Why can't independent content producers establish an alliance that works with advertisers directly? There needs to be an RSS video ad approach for this to work. If there's any Adobe Flex programmers reading this they should take notice that this is where online video can prosper benefiting all. Similar to Google's Adwords this RSS feed would automatically embed itself to the most watched episode of an online show, hence advertisers are happy that the ad is seen by many. Also URL hotspots in the video is also essential for product placement for new tab opening when the end-user clicks on it. What are your thoughts on this? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: While I respect what he's saying, because he's the one with the company that deals with the business end of making money off of people that make videos, I don't think lack of content is the problem here. The problem *now* is what I've BEEN saying the problem is, which is that without a way to figure out whether suburban males with lawns that are likely to buy a lawnmower are tuning in to your show, you can't sell advertising to lawnmower manufacturers. To say that there isn't enough content for companies to advertise on doesn't take into account that there's tons of content that NOBODY wants to advertise on because of lack of perceived ROI. That's what's so funny about this video boom. People are rushing to make a site where people are going to get on the bandwagon and upload UGC and they think they're going to make all this money from it, when in reality, they don't know JACK about video, they don't know JACK about building, growing and maintaining an audience, they don't know JACK about creating, advertising or moderating a social site... All they know is that there's gold in them thar hills! :D Get them a pan. There's CONTENT being made every single day, just on youtube alone. The point is that none of it's monetizable because you can't tell who's clicking on it, and unless you're willing to do some form of shotgun advertising where you know a show gets 200,000 views per week and you're willing to take a chance on them, it's not CONTENT you want, but GOOD content, NICHE content and content you're likely to see ROI
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Jay dedman wrote: And who gets to decide if something is a benefit to society or not? we the people, and the representatives we elect. Meanwhile, in terms of education, medicine, and pretty much everything else, public run is a synonym for crappy and busted. I hear you charles. Current governments certainly dont seem to work well. The corrupting influences are enormous. But I fear just tearing it all down, hoping people act for the good of the whole, with no alternative structuremight be worse. The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act for the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years ago it was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. So when was the last American government that wasn't corrupt? Do you look back to the days of JFK? FDR? Lincoln? How many of your good leaders do we get each century? How is that working out for you? You know the definition of insanity. J. Rhett Aultman wrote: I would tend to agree, too. Just look at the history of rural electrification to see the failure of private industry and market forces to electrify rural areas, a critical step in providing the society we now enjoy. Is it a failure whenever the market cannot provide some good at a price within the reach of everybody? Why isn't it a failure of the technology to be cheap enough? Why isn't it a failure of the rural people to go move where modernity is available? A core belief in the right to unregulated commerce is that if I sell it and someone buys it, it's our right to do, but if the service or production of the good has an effect on third parties, then the libertarian notion of not forcing others is broken and requires attention. Pollution is a form of trespassing. It is hardly libertarian to ignore such a crime.
[videoblogging] Classic TV Commercials Video Podcasts Launched BUT....
Hi everyone I've launched my classic TV commercials video podcast (In both Flash video iPod formats) HOWEVER due to problems with Blogger, I can't add the RSS feeds at this time (Or any other page element for that matter). Hopefully they'll have a fix for the problem soon. In the meantime, feel free to check out my classic TV commercials video podcasts @ http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod) http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash/ (Flash). Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado PODCASTS - AS MY WORLD TURNS - Blogger Page - http://asmyworldturnstv.blogspot.com/ BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/20453 AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http://asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ PAT'S HEALTH MEDICAL WONDERS VIDEOCAST - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ YOUTUBE CHANNEL - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepcshow THE PAT COOK SHOW (Video Podcast) - Blogger Page - http://thepctvshow.blogspot.com/ - BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/19924 **COMING SOON** - PAT'S CLASSIC TV COMMERCIALS VIDEO PODCAST - http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod), http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash/ (Flash)
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Jay dedman wrote: All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all depend on. right now, its all arbitrary..and dependent on the whims of the broadband providers. They COULD behave reasonably as you suggest. They COULD behave in their own self-interest as the presiding fear is. If the companies are giving us a good deal out of the kindness of their hearts, I don't want any of it! I don't have a personal relationship with these faceless bureaucracies and any such charity can be withdrawn at any time. I insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed and selfishness. This way I can be sure that it is in their interest to continue. And I want the satisfaction of knowing that, if they deviate, they're hurting themselves as well as me, and opening themselves up to attack from a competitor.
Re: [videoblogging] Classic TV Commercials Video Podcasts Launched BUT....
The URL you have for the Flash version of your show has an error in it. It should be... http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash.blogspot.com/ But you have it as... http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash/ (You're missing the blogspot.com in that URL.) It's both in the link in the message you posted... as well as in your signature. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, Patrick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone I've launched my classic TV commercials video podcast (In both Flash video iPod formats) HOWEVER due to problems with Blogger, I can't add the RSS feeds at this time (Or any other page element for that matter). Hopefully they'll have a fix for the problem soon. In the meantime, feel free to check out my classic TV commercials video podcasts @ http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod) http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash/ (Flash). Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado PODCASTS - AS MY WORLD TURNS - Blogger Page - http://asmyworldturnstv.blogspot.com/ BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/20453 AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http://asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ PAT'S HEALTH MEDICAL WONDERS VIDEOCAST - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ YOUTUBE CHANNEL - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepcshow THE PAT COOK SHOW (Video Podcast) - Blogger Page - http://thepctvshow.blogspot.com/ - BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/19924 **COMING SOON** - PAT'S CLASSIC TV COMMERCIALS VIDEO PODCAST - http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod), http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash/ (Flash)
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act for the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years ago it was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ahnow i know why we arent seeing eye to eye. you are assuming that all business is local where I get to meet the person who makes my goods and services. The good businessman then makes sure he is a good community citizen to maintain his profits. Yes, im all for this. let freedom ring. Unfortunately, we have moved past this time where now global companies sell us our goods. I know you insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed and selfishness, but be careful what you ask for. Their interests may realize that destroying an entire region is good for their business. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster WHOOPS!) A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant; authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense that such a move would incur.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#_note-Kovel All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has produced the likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion. there's goes my rights! jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: HD quality on YouTube
I think you can download a program to upload files larger than 100mb's. However it is only for a PC... MACs are left out. A while ago, I tried to upload a Flash file, and YT still compressed it again. It looked awful. Has YT changed this recently? sjs On Feb 13, 2008 1:51 PM, influxxmedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe this is true. The nudie video looked very good indeed. YouTube limits uploads to 100MB (does it still work that way, been a while) so they are not limiting DATA RATE. The nudie vids were 10mins long which is quite long, but if you encode down to H264 at a pretty high quality BEFORE uploading to YT I have heard you can get a lot more band for your 100MB buck. Also, using a dedicated FLV encoder to do a 2-pass Variable Bit Rate encode will yield much better quality than the generic YT upload default. I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it won't get transcoded. It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was uploaded. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Meanwhile, in terms of education, medicine, and pretty much everything else, public run is a synonym for crappy and busted. You can select an equal number of targets where privatized implies an equal quagmire. The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act for the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years ago it was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Yes, but this isn't the end-all, and even P.J. O'Rourke, who recently wrote _On The Wealth of Nations_, will quickly admit that Smith actually wasn't a huge fan of the marketeering class. Smith is also quoted as saying that merchants never get together, even for recreation, without their conversations turning to how to extort the public. So when was the last American government that wasn't corrupt? Do you look back to the days of JFK? FDR? Lincoln? How many of your good leaders do we get each century? How is that working out for you? You know the definition of insanity. This is hollow rhetoric, as was your first paragraph. There's a litany of the corruptions of the private sector, too, and it rarely was through competition or boycott that they were halted. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
Re: [videoblogging] Blip Pro Account
On Feb 13, 2008 9:58 AM, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At http://blip.tv/prefs there should be a retry button next to the video in question. Thanks Charles. However,there isn't a button next to the item. I'll contact the support address. Shel. -- www.icenrye.com www.icenrye.blogspot.com www.icenryelikes.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash
Thanks a boatload! I've uploaded our first high quality offering: http://k9disc.com . It's our new puppy, Prima, and highlights from her first two days at Pawsitive Vybe. Any suggestions, critiques feedback would be appreciated - the site, quality, design, etc. I'm looking to monetize the show and could use some help. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:05 PM, influxxmedia wrote: I'll chip in with my 2 cents here as it varies from the populace it seems. To export 16:9 FLV from anamorphic DV (your 720x480) your final video size will need to be 854x480. It sounds like VisualHub may do this for you. I do my encoding in Telestream Episode, as it does batch encoding to a gazzilion formats. Its not cheap but the quality is great and the level of control you get is astounding. I set my bit rates pretty low and my picture size is still small, but if you wanted to full frame with your video you could get good quality from VP6 FLV (Flash8). Here are a couple of quick sampples I just spat out of Episode. Used built in templates, no tweeking so they could be optimized a little. I noticed the playback of the 720 version is a little jerky. Don't know why right now. But the spacial and temporal quality holds up pretty well. 1280x720 FLV at 3500kbps 2-pass VBR http://influxx.com/public/Scene9_1280x720.flv 854x480 FLV at 2000kbps 2-pass VBR http://influxx.com/public/Scene9_854x480.flv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to blip? I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage. I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y) and am hoping to have more success. I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file. We've got great cameras and great high motion footage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Classic TV Commercials Video Podcasts Launched BUT....
Hi everyone: On Feb 13, 2008 4:40 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The URL you have for the Flash version of your show has an error in it. It should be... http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash.blogspot.com/ But you have it as... http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash/ (You're missing the blogspot.com in that URL.) It's both in the link in the message you posted... as well as in your signature. Thnaks. I corrected it. :) Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado PODCASTS - AS MY WORLD TURNS - Blogger Page - http://asmyworldturnstv.blogspot.com/ BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/20453 AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http://asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ PAT'S HEALTH MEDICAL WONDERS VIDEOCAST - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ YOUTUBE CHANNEL - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepcshow THE PAT COOK SHOW (Video Podcast) - Blogger Page - http://thepctvshow.blogspot.com/ - BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/19924 **COMING SOON** - PAT'S CLASSIC TV COMMERCIALS VIDEO PODCAST - http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod), http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash.blogspot.com/ (Flash)
RE: [videoblogging] Re: HD quality on YouTube
I think you can download a program to upload files larger than 100mb's. However it is only for a PC... MACs are left out. A while ago, I tried to upload a Flash file, and YT still compressed it again. It looked awful. Has YT changed this recently? Apparently you have to do some trickery to get it to work, which is kind of lame. Following the steps in the tutorial here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=08NI4cy4zik You get a pristine looking video at under 1 minute, down to slightly better than YouTube results at 4 minutes. Apparently over 4 minute videos won't work. I don't think you actually need the tool the guy recommends, you just need to know the right command line hashes for FFMPEG (meaning you should be able to use FFMPEGX or WinFF or SUPER). Licensing a copy of the On2 codec probably wouldn't hurt either. If you click the More link in his description for the video, he definitely has a bunch of great looking footage posted (relative to the way other YouTube vids look at least). Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX SxS Pro HD Camcorder
I got to work with one for an afternoon. I really liked it for my needs. It overcranks and undercranks. Has a histogram you can see on the screen so it is easier to get the right exposure. However I am waiting to see how it looks in slo mo and how it looks on the web. It is a great price right now. I was told it was gonna be more. Just my 2 cents sjs On Feb 13, 2008 12:02 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone used Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX SxS Pro HD Camcorder. I am thinking of purchasing it and was wondering if anyone had any positive or negative feedback. hmmm...love to hear anyone's experience. here's a link: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamEX_index.shtml new to me. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion that was very interesting. It was all about how Hugo Chavez was battling Exxon Mobil in court over a recent move to make the government of Venezuela the majority owner Big Oil projects in country. I'd rather not get into the whole morass over who is right or who is wrong, but would like to address the idea of power that was seriously brought up on the program. An argument that I make all the time about Exxon Mobil was actually expressed in the media, granted it was on NPR, but these days, there's very little difference between NPR and the Corporate Media, yet another discussion Anyway, the point that one of the commentators made was that while we are talking about a country and Exxon Mobil, a company, Exxon Mobil actually had more money power and clout than the country of Venezuela. Exxon Mobil when viewed as an economy is larger and far more influential than the country of Austria. Think about that for a moment... Exxon Mobil is a larger economy than many Western European nations. I don't think Adam Smith had that in mind when he wrote 'Wealth of Nations'. Another thing that I bring up here in Michigan, is that Exxon Mobil makes more in profit in one quarter than the State of Michigan has in it's entire yearly budget. That's a serious problem, IMO. When the Big Oil gets together, or any other serious industry organization, like banking organizations or insurance organizations, they wield far more power, influence, money and clout than most nations on the planet. That's another problem that Adam Smith could not have known about. That kind of scale changes everything, and I don't think many people realize that. Jay, Bhopal was an absolute horror. Thank you for bringing it up. Charles, I think I understand where you are coming from, and in your shoes, the government is definitely a problem, but I don't think that it's government as an institution, but government in practice. I also think that the problem stems from too much freedom for corporations. Corporations are property, not people, and they should not have rights of citizens. I don't think we'll ever resolve this discussion, but I want you to know that I empathize with your position in this situation. Cheers, http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Jay dedman wrote: The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act for the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years ago it was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ahnow i know why we arent seeing eye to eye. you are assuming that all business is local where I get to meet the person who makes my goods and services. The good businessman then makes sure he is a good community citizen to maintain his profits. Yes, im all for this. let freedom ring. Unfortunately, we have moved past this time where now global companies sell us our goods. I know you insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed and selfishness, but be careful what you ask for. Their interests may realize that destroying an entire region is good for their business. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster WHOOPS!) A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant; authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense that such a move would incur.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#_note-Kovel All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has produced the likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion. there's goes my rights! jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Good cheap FLV encoder for Windows...
Try FFmpeg. It's a command line tool. But there's a number of GUI's for it too. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 7:33 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A friend of mine would like to create higher quality FLVs on his windows machine. Any suggestions? Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com
[videoblogging] Good cheap FLV encoder for Windows...
A friend of mine would like to create higher quality FLVs on his windows machine. Any suggestions? Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Good cheap FLV encoder for Windows...
A friend of mine would like to create higher quality FLVs on his windows machine. Any suggestions? WinFF - it's not massively bloated and slow like Super. http://www.topdrawerdownloads.com/download/104928 And it still readily exposes all the command line goodness if you need it. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] re: LED lights
Firewire sucks. A client's HV20 just fell victim to a fried port. Unless you have a dedicated firewire BUS (not port) with the ability to turn its power on or off for each device, things will fry. But on the camera/deck end, for DV and HDV, it's all we've got unless you go with a tower and an uncompressed card. At least we now have eSATA for drives. Brook On 2/13/08, Brian Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I LOVE LEDs. just make sure you get some CTO to compensate for the color temp that tends to be cold, in which case, they're great to balance with daylight. but it's soft and energy saving and usually comes with a dimmer. aside from the on-board panels, DP Joaquín Baca-Asay (DP of Thumbsucker) swears by 1x1 ft LED panels for soft natural light. good luck. -brian On 2/11/08, JD Lasica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Markus, No, the lowlife who stole my Canon Digital Rebel didn't return it, so I need to buy a new digital camera, but that's for another list. :~) If you're in the market for an LED light, I discovered that the DV Estore (www.dvestore.com) in Washington state sells them for $299 plus $8 shipping. jd lasica realpeoplenetwork.com ourmedia.org -- Brian Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-683-6027 taxiplasm.net -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Viddler's New Video Comment Plug-In
I like that option Jay, use the service of choice. Unfortunately right now the only services that I know of that lets you record video from their site is Viddler and YouTube. Blip took theirs down and Vimeo hasn't released their's yet. But this is just the beginning I think. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do wonder if video comments will attract much stronger human concerns about ownership control, than text ones do. If I post a comment somewhere, who owns or controls it? The site I posted it on, me, or the company that provided the technical infrastructure/hosting? text is an open system. it may be on your service, but its easy enough to copy and paste. not true for video. Id be down with a video commenting plugin that let me choose which service I were to use. Viddler, youtube, revver, or any service that wants to offer video comments. Itd also be cool if video sites didnt lock their videos in the page so it could easily copiable as text. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Viddler's New Video Comment Plug-In
I agree; there are going to be a lot of them. I think this will be a big year for Instant Gratification video services. Sounds like a pretty crazy plugin to have multiple choices for services in video commenting; like that long string of buttons under blogposts for digg, reddit, etc, etc.. On Feb 13, 2008 9:18 PM, Clintus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like that option Jay, use the service of choice. Unfortunately right now the only services that I know of that lets you record video from their site is Viddler and YouTube. Blip took theirs down and Vimeo hasn't released their's yet. But this is just the beginning I think. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do wonder if video comments will attract much stronger human concerns about ownership control, than text ones do. If I post a comment somewhere, who owns or controls it? The site I posted it on, me, or the company that provided the technical infrastructure/hosting? text is an open system. it may be on your service, but its easy enough to copy and paste. not true for video. Id be down with a video commenting plugin that let me choose which service I were to use. Viddler, youtube, revver, or any service that wants to offer video comments. Itd also be cool if video sites didnt lock their videos in the page so it could easily copiable as text. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Good cheap FLV encoder for Windows...
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A friend of mine would like to create higher quality FLVs on his windows machine. Any suggestions? How about Riva FLV Encoder. The price is right.. http://www.rivavx.com/?encoder -- www.icenrye.com www.icenrye.blogspot.com www.icenryelikes.blogspot.com
Re: [videoblogging] Good cheap FLV encoder for Windows...
Like this one.. http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 7:38 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try FFmpeg. It's a command line tool. But there's a number of GUI's for it too. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 13, 2008 7:33 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A friend of mine would like to create higher quality FLVs on his windows machine. Any suggestions? Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com
Re: [videoblogging] Good cheap FLV encoder for Windows...
WinFF... this is the first time I think I've heard of it. Nice that there's more options in that space. I think this is the main URL for it is... http://biggmatt.com/winff/ -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A friend of mine would like to create higher quality FLVs on his windows machine. Any suggestions? WinFF - it's not massively bloated and slow like Super. http://www.topdrawerdownloads.com/download/104928 And it still readily exposes all the command line goodness if you need it. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
[videoblogging] Ninja Girl Debut!
Hi Ninja Girl, our new show has just been released today! http://ninjagirl.from.tv/ We just did videoblogging event in Tokyo, Japan. It was very exciting! (here is one of the articles) http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nc20080206a1.html We felt like starting something that we can connect to the world, and that is why we have started this show! Hope you will like it. Thank you! Tajee P.S. We also have videoblogging community in Japan! Join us if you are interested! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Ninja Girl Debut!
Fun video, Tajee! :D Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Yukako Tajima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ninja Girl, our new show has just been released today! http://ninjagirl.from.tv/ We just did videoblogging event in Tokyo, Japan. It was very exciting! (here is one of the articles) http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nc20080206a1.html We felt like starting something that we can connect to the world, and that is why we have started this show! Hope you will like it. Thank you! Tajee P.S. We also have videoblogging community in Japan! Join us if you are interested! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ninja Girl Debut!
Kent and Doug better watch out -- this looks pretty deadly. Tajee's fierce ninja balance skills and adorable kids? Video gold. On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fun video, Tajee! :D Bill http://BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Yukako Tajima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ninja Girl, our new show has just been released today! http://ninjagirl.from.tv/ We just did videoblogging event in Tokyo, Japan. It was very exciting! (here is one of the articles) http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nc20080206a1.html We felt like starting something that we can connect to the world, and that is why we have started this show! Hope you will like it. Thank you! Tajee P.S. We also have videoblogging community in Japan! Join us if you are interested! [EMAIL PROTECTED] videoblogjapan%40googlegroups.com __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] re: LED lights
I LOVE LEDs. just make sure you get some CTO to compensate for the color temp that tends to be cold, in which case, they're great to balance with daylight. but it's soft and energy saving and usually comes with a dimmer. aside from the on-board panels, DP Joaquín Baca-Asay (DP of Thumbsucker) swears by 1x1 ft LED panels for soft natural light. good luck. -brian On 2/11/08, JD Lasica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Markus, No, the lowlife who stole my Canon Digital Rebel didn't return it, so I need to buy a new digital camera, but that's for another list. :~) If you're in the market for an LED light, I discovered that the DV Estore (www.dvestore.com) in Washington state sells them for $299 plus $8 shipping. jd lasica realpeoplenetwork.com ourmedia.org -- Brian Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-683-6027 taxiplasm.net
