[videoblogging] Re: Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/et
I'm also interested. Using the vlogtheory group is not a bad idea, as there were some interesting discussions on there, but like Adrian says it's not quite the right name and the focus was different from what you're suggesting here. For me it would have the advantage of being already subscribed :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: am interested but perhaps could use the exisitng (and silent) vlogtheory yahoo group, as I'd expect most of that membership to be also interested... of course the name might not work :-) On 16/06/2008, at 7:49 AM, Brook Hinton wrote: Howdy Videoblogginglistfolk. I'm considering starting a list for folks making or interested in work made for the web (or using the web as a venue) that is coming from an experimental film / video art / installation direction. The list would focus on aesthetics and theory as well as tech help, economics/ sustainability, and anything else about online cinema art and its relationship to its offline context. Would love to hear from anyone who would be interested and also any cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Fake News
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:43 AM, kaytoh1414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the reply, I've been looking at Sony Vegas 8 and was wondering what feature would i need to learn to get the news show look? It's not one specific feature ... a lot of the news look comes from how you setup the news anchor shot. You can produce similar videos with one of a dozen editors. I like Vegas because you get a lot of punch for your money. Check out The Onion News Network or some of the news clips we produced for Dragon*ConTV to get an idea of the range available in news-looking spoofs. Note the Dragon*ConTV production values are slightly lower than The Onion's :) Even though The Daily Show is the model everyone aspires to, I'd skip them as your primary example ... they have a huge set, huge writing staff, budget and play many of their jokes to a live audience. Stick with the more low-budget productions so your example is closer to your available resources. If you plan on using a green screen, you can find backgrounds that look line today's newsroom (lots of TVs in the background, city skyline, etc.). Without the greenscreen, use a light-colored neutral background so your news anchor suit doesn't blend in (a mistake we made producing DCTV in 2004). Frame the shot so you can insert the over the shoulder shot in post production (video or photo pertaining to your story). You can use the text generator or Pro-Type Titler tools in Vegas to overlay text at the bottom of the screen. The banner the text sits on can be generated in Photoshop as a PNG with transparent background, then overlayed on the image. Of course, none of the slick production matters if the content sucks ... which is why I don't watch local news anymore, even in HD :) Keep the jokes short, don't let them drag (at Dragon*ConTV we call this SNL Syndrome). Set the audience up with the cream pie, hit them, then run. Brian Richardson - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://whatthecast.com - http://www.3chip.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
Hello everyone, Caleb, great to meet you, digitally... Instead of memorizing everything and just get things done, you could grab the aspect ratio calculator... http://www.wideopendoors.net/design/aspect_ratio_calculator.html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does does anyone have online resource for the math, or dimensions that will scale correctly so I can pick any size I want and change it. And is putting letter box into normal res smarter? etc. I've been feeling like such an idiot working with getting my new Canon 1920x1080 footage to the web (YouTube, Blip) without messing up the aspect ratio. Using FCE 4, the drop down compression is confusing...There's 16x9 and 4x3 settings for 720x480, etc. Then there's the preserve aspect ratio options, and more often then not my video ends up squeezed. I just came up this post here, and I'm trying it. http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/distributing-your-videos-on-the-web/ Heath Says: November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm Thanks, Arin, you rock. If anyone is using ***HDV 1080i/p footage, your frame size in QuickTime Pro/Conversion can be 600 x 338.*** This was given to me by Jon Fordham, who shot parts of Four Eyed Monsters and my feature film 9:04 AM. It's been GREAT!
[videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around. But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time? Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly don't see Johnson and Johnson sending ad dollars to YouTube anytime soon. Lost amid the shuffle, though, is the question of ad dollars itself. How does Google monetize YouTube on videos that you create? Sure, it figured out the online business, but video is a totally different game
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
Big help, thanks. The video's aspect ratio is intact and it looks better (http://www.lakeplacidfilmforum.com/) ~ ~ Caleb J. Clark ~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com ~ The problem with communication is the assumption it has been accomplished. - G. B. Shaw. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around. But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time? Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Interesting. To me, Youtube appears more ghetto than other video sharing services, but it's getting the most eyeballs so why isn't Youtube making money? Granted it does bleed incredibly for bandwidth / month, but Youtube does remain center of attention for more users and even mainstream media. I'd say Google should start having a subscription model in place (e.g. Youtube Pro) to resolve that problem altogether. Kevin Lim Social Media Provocateur http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ╔╗╔═╦╗ ║╚╣║║╚╗ ╚═╩═╩═╝ On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Heath - this inspired me to blog today. Thank you!http://is.gd/yDy Rox 2008/6/16 Kevin Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting. To me, Youtube appears more ghetto than other video sharing services, but it's getting the most eyeballs so why isn't Youtube making money? Granted it does bleed incredibly for bandwidth / month, but Youtube does remain center of attention for more users and even mainstream media. I'd say Google should start having a subscription model in place (e.g. Youtube Pro) to resolve that problem altogether. Kevin Lim Social Media Provocateur http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ¥¨¥ ¸¨ ¡«µ¡¡«¨ « » » ® On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's
Re: [videoblogging] Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/etc. persuasion?
yes great idea! let us know the list - whether it's vlogtheory or other. or a facebook/ning group for posting/central viewing too? or semanal-like site.
[videoblogging] David Howell's Iowa flooding coverage picked up by BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7455199.stm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I think that yes, there are more users of online video than ever, I just wonder how many of those people though are really interested in user generated content, on a mass adoption level. I mean let's face it, if Google can't figure out a way to make money off YouTube, then all the VC money with these other companies are going to dry up. It will happen. I think most of the people who are online watching video's want to see professional contentI hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
People want: - Professional content - Viral content - Important content Most user-gen content does not fit within these constructs. At least not on a consistent basis. And most people should not care. The Audience of 10. If you do care about how large of an audience you have and you do want to try and monetize, then you will need to output professional and/or important content. You'll have to fill in the blanks here. sull On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that yes, there are more users of online video than ever, I just wonder how many of those people though are really interested in user generated content, on a mass adoption level. I mean let's face it, if Google can't figure out a way to make money off YouTube, then all the VC money with these other companies are going to dry up. It will happen. I think most of the people who are online watching video's want to see professional contentI hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/et
If this is setup or will be setup, please let me know about it. thanks, sull On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:41 AM, deirdreharvey2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm also interested. Using the vlogtheory group is not a bad idea, as there were some interesting discussions on there, but like Adrian says it's not quite the right name and the focus was different from what you're suggesting here. For me it would have the advantage of being already subscribed :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: am interested but perhaps could use the exisitng (and silent) vlogtheory yahoo group, as I'd expect most of that membership to be also interested... of course the name might not work :-) On 16/06/2008, at 7:49 AM, Brook Hinton wrote: Howdy Videoblogginglistfolk. I'm considering starting a list for folks making or interested in work made for the web (or using the web as a venue) that is coming from an experimental film / video art / installation direction. The list would focus on aesthetics and theory as well as tech help, economics/ sustainability, and anything else about online cinema art and its relationship to its offline context. Would love to hear from anyone who would be interested and also any cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Time to make sure you still have your own copies of all the videos you've uploaded to sharing sites. I still can't get past YouTube's quality. I don't mean content quality - I mean Basic Picture Quality. I mean COME ON. It's three years since they officially launched and they *still* can't raise the quality of their Flash codec? What seemed a smart move to begin with - allowing maximum viewership with no requirements to upgrade Flash Player - has turned into a tired-looking mess. Apart from being unattractive to content producers, who the hell is going to want to spend millions of dollars putting their beautifully made adverts on something so shitty? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 16-Jun-08, at 1:36 PM, Sull wrote: People want: - Professional content - Viral content - Important content Most user-gen content does not fit within these constructs. At least not on a consistent basis. And most people should not care. The Audience of 10. If you do care about how large of an audience you have and you do want to try and monetize, then you will need to output professional and/or important content. You'll have to fill in the blanks here. sull On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that yes, there are more users of online video than ever, I just wonder how many of those people though are really interested in user generated content, on a mass adoption level. I mean let's face it, if Google can't figure out a way to make money off YouTube, then all the VC money with these other companies are going to dry up. It will happen. I think most of the people who are online watching video's want to see professional contentI hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it
Re: [videoblogging] David Howell's Iowa flooding coverage picked up by BBC
David's videoblog coverage of the flooding wasn't just 'picked up' - he was on the Front Page all day yesterday! They got very excited by the fact that he was reporting from the front line of a news event with his mobile phone. He doesn't subscribe to this list any more, I don't think - but it was a big deal for a videoblogger to be featured like this, so huge congrats to him :) On 16-Jun-08, at 12:54 PM, Sull wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7455199.stm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
I agree. I've been using a Canon Ixus 860 (European name for Powershot, I think) and it shoots beautiful video. I love it. And it's FANTASTIC in low light. Better than Xacti. But not quite so good a grip. I think the Xacti pistol grip is the best way to shoot - better than the traditional camcorder grip. It produces big video files, though, compared to other little cameras I've used - so get yourself an 8GB memory card or two. I found the best deals for memory cards online - shops will rip you off. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12-Jun-08, at 12:48 PM, Jay dedman wrote: I'm heading to India for my honeymoon and the entire summer and plan to vlog and do some interviews from there. I *do not* plan to bring my macbook. I just want to bring a firewire or usb cable and upload at cafes. It needs to be small, light and easy to travel with and have decent sound. the canon powershot is actually a great choice. it has good sound, its small. It also records in AVI so a PC in an internet cafe will read them. Just use Windows Movie Maker that comes with XP. should be on most public computers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that place. On the other hand though, the haters that have made a home for themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit and that means into the truly great communities out there that are virtually hate free. That would be a sad day. So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around. But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time? Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to
Re: [videoblogging] Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
my canon powershot (sd600) doesn´t admit 8 g cards, only 1 and 2 g. http://pepa.tv http://teleperra.com On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I've been using a Canon Ixus 860 (European name for Powershot, I think) and it shoots beautiful video. I love it. And it's FANTASTIC in low light. Better than Xacti. But not quite so good a grip. I think the Xacti pistol grip is the best way to shoot - better than the traditional camcorder grip. It produces big video files, though, compared to other little cameras I've used - so get yourself an 8GB memory card or two. I found the best deals for memory cards online - shops will rip you off. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12-Jun-08, at 12:48 PM, Jay dedman wrote: I'm heading to India for my honeymoon and the entire summer and plan to vlog and do some interviews from there. I *do not* plan to bring my macbook. I just want to bring a firewire or usb cable and upload at cafes. It needs to be small, light and easy to travel with and have decent sound. the canon powershot is actually a great choice. it has good sound, its small. It also records in AVI so a PC in an internet cafe will read them. Just use Windows Movie Maker that comes with XP. should be on most public computers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that place. On the other hand though, the haters that have made a home for themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit and that means into the truly great communities out there that are virtually hate free. That would be a sad day. So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select
Re: [videoblogging] Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
I have a Sony PD150 PS camera (with a 1G card), tried out the video a couple of weeks ago: http://tesla-roadster.blogspot.com [ my officemate in grad school was M. Eberhard/Telsa Motors ] I was surprised at how good the .mpg looked on my computer. I imported it to iMovie, exported it as a .m4v (iPod compatible). Which I uploaded to Blip.tv, you see the results. They don't look as good as the original .mpg, though. On Jun 16, 2008, at 4:11 PM, pepa wrote: my canon powershot (sd600) doesn´t admit 8 g cards, only 1 and 2 g. http://pepa.tv http://teleperra.com On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I've been using a Canon Ixus 860 (European name for Powershot, I think) and it shoots beautiful video. I love it. And it's FANTASTIC in low light. Better than Xacti. But not quite so good a grip. I think the Xacti pistol grip is the best way to shoot - better than the traditional camcorder grip. It produces big video files, though, compared to other little cameras I've used - so get yourself an 8GB memory card or two. I found the best deals for memory cards online - shops will rip you off. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12-Jun-08, at 12:48 PM, Jay dedman wrote: I'm heading to India for my honeymoon and the entire summer and plan to vlog and do some interviews from there. I *do not* plan to bring my macbook. I just want to bring a firewire or usb cable and upload at cafes. It needs to be small, light and easy to travel with and have decent sound. the canon powershot is actually a great choice. it has good sound, its small. It also records in AVI so a PC in an internet cafe will read them. Just use Windows Movie Maker that comes with XP. should be on most public computers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
For sure Beach Walks is an oddity but we actually get nice comments on YT. Only rarely do we get spammy ones, and I do the same thing Rupert does with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. There are so many uses of YT now - incredible archives there - enter any topic and you will find videos about it (try surgery...) And there are also many smart and caring users there too. We all share the same space with each other in theory but actually there are lots of sub-communities happening that could be more discoverable and useful potentially. That's the 2 cents department. Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that place. On the other hand though, the haters that have made a home for themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit and that means into the truly great communities out there that are virtually hate free. That would be a sad day. So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even
[videoblogging] Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
The discussion about YouTube got me thinking. I did a little tour of some video sharing sites. I went to http://office.wreckandsalvage.com/ where they have a list of links to all the video sharing sites they upload to. A bunch of them are now defunct. All the predictable ones, like Grouper/Crackle, Studio6 and Dabble. Sharkle is still holding on somehow. I was amazed at how dull they all are. How limited the extra number of views they offer, how limited their sense of community networking. Above all, I was struck by the incredibly limited range of videos on most of these sites. Blip is really onto something by focussing on Shows in the way that it does now. At least it's not all bikini models and sport clips. I wondered what the point of them all was. There's no way that I'm going to waste my time uploading videos to any of them, for the sake of a few dozen views by people who don't care. It seems to me that the only reason these sites would interest videobloggers video artists is if they get videos in front of likeminded people with whom they can connect and communicate. So perhaps it's an ability to foster community that will make the difference between success and failure for these sites. I heard Vimeo has good community. And Viddler? Is that right? What about Daily Motion? Any others? Does anyone else have any good experiences on any other video sharing sites? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I'm glad my comment about hunting and killing people was followed up by Rox. I feel better now. On 16-Jun-08, at 6:15 PM, Roxanne Darling wrote: For sure Beach Walks is an oddity but we actually get nice comments on YT. Only rarely do we get spammy ones, and I do the same thing Rupert does with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. There are so many uses of YT now - incredible archives there - enter any topic and you will find videos about it (try surgery...) And there are also many smart and caring users there too. We all share the same space with each other in theory but actually there are lots of sub-communities happening that could be more discoverable and useful potentially. That's the 2 cents department. Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that place. On the other hand though, the haters that have made a home for themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit and that means into the truly great communities out there that are virtually hate free. That would be a sad day. So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle,
Re: [videoblogging] David Howell's Iowa flooding coverage picked up by BBC
thats so cool! yay david! On 6/16/08, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David's videoblog coverage of the flooding wasn't just 'picked up' - he was on the Front Page all day yesterday! They got very excited by the fact that he was reporting from the front line of a news event with his mobile phone. He doesn't subscribe to this list any more, I don't think - but it was a big deal for a videoblogger to be featured like this, so huge congrats to him :) On 16-Jun-08, at 12:54 PM, Sull wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7455199.stm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
My pleasure. ___ Michael J. Carrasquillo Director | Filmmaker | Musician MY SITECAST: http://www.michaelcarrasquillo.com MY VIDEOCAST: http://www.thetrialsofbeingmike.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Big help, thanks. The video's aspect ratio is intact and it looks better (http://www.lakeplacidfilmforum.com/) ~ ~ Caleb J. Clark ~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com ~ The problem with communication is the assumption it has been accomplished. - G. B. Shaw. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???
Nice find, Mike. :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mjcarrasquillo2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone, Caleb, great to meet you, digitally... Instead of memorizing everything and just get things done, you could grab the aspect ratio calculator... http://www.wideopendoors.net/design/aspect_ratio_calculator.html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb J. Clark calebjc@ wrote: Does does anyone have online resource for the math, or dimensions that will scale correctly so I can pick any size I want and change it. And is putting letter box into normal res smarter? etc. I've been feeling like such an idiot working with getting my new Canon 1920x1080 footage to the web (YouTube, Blip) without messing up the aspect ratio. Using FCE 4, the drop down compression is confusing...There's 16x9 and 4x3 settings for 720x480, etc. Then there's the preserve aspect ratio options, and more often then not my video ends up squeezed. I just came up this post here, and I'm trying it. http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/distributing-your-videos-on-the-web/ Heath Says: November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm Thanks, Arin, you rock. If anyone is using ***HDV 1080i/p footage, your frame size in QuickTime Pro/Conversion can be 600 x 338.*** This was given to me by Jon Fordham, who shot parts of Four Eyed Monsters and my feature film 9:04 AM. It's been GREAT!
