[videoblogging] upload a Youtube video: adding textual commentary to parody/satire a news clip?
Copyright issues Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff- Rose Music, Inc. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her. Parodying music is legal in the U.K, America and Canada. I want to upload a video clip from a news broadcast, to Youtube. To avoid violating terms of use (copyright infringement), can I add some text for satire (commentary). Would this parody of a copyrighted broadcast..work? Isn't that how Jay Leno/NBC (or Jimmy Kimmel/ABC) can take news clips, air it on their comedy shows with satire.. get away with it? This subject has come up on this list a while back. But, I forgot the outcome. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 I've seen that Vimeo has some focused groups, like the HV20 group or Vimeo HD or one specifically focused on comedy. Because of that, they have people that subscribe to certain topics or filmmakers and watch the videos and comment. So that ends up being some decent communities, even though it's still inside a walled garden to a degree, because it's 'only' the people inside Vimeo AND inside that particular group. What you're talking about is the reason that I post my videos to blip. I stick to self-promotion and iTunes... not that I have a ton of hits, haha. The point is that the extra locations weren't useful to me, for the reasons you stated. Basically, they tend to depend on some gimmick to make people want to post there, but in the long run, there's no actual traction. The traction comes from people bookmarking and RSSing your site, using the videos as a back end, so it really doesn't matter where the videos are parked, and you're not seeing much return from the community aspect of the sites as a destination. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 I do need to care because if all the video sharing sites go away, then where am I going to put my video's? Upload to my host? Still learning how to do that, I use the other services because they are easy and I don't have to figure MORE stuff out Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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, Heath heathparks@ 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Unfortunately, the way to deal with comments on YouTube is to turn them off. :) Unfortunately, as we've mentioned on this group several times, a lot of the so-called hits on youtube are from people that DON'T like the videos. If a video gets featured, there are a lot of hits from people that will click any image they see on the front page of a web site, especially if there's an attractive female on that thumbnail. Some people show up specifically to be griefers, so the only way around that is to have some system where the content creator has to specifically approve people to comment on their videos, or turn off commenting altogether. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ 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, Heath heathparks@ 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
But here is the interesting thing, at least for me, is that most people seem to be willing to take all the crap, just in the HOPES that their video does go viral. It's like some kind of badge or something. It's weird... Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, the way to deal with comments on YouTube is to turn them off. :) Unfortunately, as we've mentioned on this group several times, a lot of the so-called hits on youtube are from people that DON'T like the videos. If a video gets featured, there are a lot of hits from people that will click any image they see on the front page of a web site, especially if there's an attractive female on that thumbnail. Some people show up specifically to be griefers, so the only way around that is to have some system where the content creator has to specifically approve people to comment on their videos, or turn off commenting altogether. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ 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, Heath heathparks@ 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
Re: [videoblogging] Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
I really like Vimeo in terms of features, functionality and design. Though I use it mainly to share the small number of videos I don't want to publicly post on my vlog (it has different levels of privacy settings, which is why I like it). I can't say what it has to offer in terms of community, because I haven't explored that side of it yet. It seems to me that the best way to share your videos is still to use something like blip to host and talk things up in comments, twitter and hope people subscribe via rss or see your tweets. Viddler has a nice community here in Philly, because it's homegrown. I know a lot of people use it here who aren't vloggers but want to share videos sometimes. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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] -- Lauren Galanter www.laurengalanter.com www.linkedin.com/in/laureng Skype: lgalanter 610-761-4435 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: qik.com, kytetv and Rober Scoble's post on TechCrunch
I'm not sure about that. All I can offer is that qik tells me the moto q and blackjack are following the nokia n95 next. Sprint tells me the instinct will live stream. Jennifer Goodwin http://www.internetgirlfriday.com/ www.internetGIRLfriday.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Free Beer to the person who can explain the steps of recording
I have no problem purchasing what I need at this point. But it's useless to me if no one can explain every possible setting required. Format export, Format conversion, upload to ___ etc. It's a long process..And lots of people are suggesting: CamStudio, Camtasia and Replay. None do me any good if I don't know how to set them up before and after. Cabernet is an option for payment. I like Groth. Jennifer Goodwin http://www.internetgirlfriday.com/ www.internetGIRLfriday.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] help with streched letterboxed video?
At work today one of our shows was delivered but the video is distorted. They did send it as 640x480, but it's letterboxed and the video *within* that is streched (too wide--like how video looks with square pixels at 720x480). Almost a double-letterboxing effect. I need to figure out what they did wrong to produce this (using FCP) so I can tell them how to export it correctly. Unfortunately I don't know what it was shot in, but I think it was on a pd 150. I'm kind of at a loss and would appreciate any help. If you think you might know I can send you a screen grab privately. Thanks! -- Lauren Galanter www.laurengalanter.com www.linkedin.com/in/laureng Skype: lgalanter 610-761-4435 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] upload a Youtube video: adding textual commentary to parody/satire a news clip?
By the sound of things, they don't really care too much what your fair use argument is - if the owner squeals, they're going to take it down or delete your account. I would set up a separate Youtube account for any copyrighted material, so that if the account gets deleted, you don't lose other stuff. Given that, as discussed in the other thread, there's almost never any traffic that comes to other videos on your channel as a result of one video getting popular, what have you got to lose by having multiple accounts? In any case, the best way of linking videos on Youtube is not by having them on the same account, but by using one or two tags unique to you - like byenvideo, perhaps - on all your videos, so that they show up in the 'related videos' panel. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 17-Jun-08, at 4:23 AM, B Yen wrote: Copyright issues Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff- Rose Music, Inc. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her. Parodying music is legal in the U.K, America and Canada. I want to upload a video clip from a news broadcast, to Youtube. To avoid violating terms of use (copyright infringement), can I add some text for satire (commentary). Would this parody of a copyrighted broadcast..work? Isn't that how Jay Leno/NBC (or Jimmy Kimmel/ABC) can take news clips, air it on their comedy shows with satire.. get away with it? This subject has come up on this list a while back. But, I forgot the outcome. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
Thanks Bill and Lauren - great replies. I feel more attracted to Vimeo and Viddler, and less inclined to waste time elsewhere. This lack of traction that you talk about, Bill, is a huge problem with Youtube. Youtube is still such a popular monopoly that I'm not sure they see how much of a problem it really is. If one of your videos gets popular, it just *does not* translate into views for your other videos. I have one video with 150,000 views because it's a video of a flashmob, and *none* of those viewers go on to watch any of my others. They just don't do anything to promote the producer of the video. The idea of channels on Youtube is a joke, when you really look at it. And they serve the producer poorly with their picture quality. As IPTV progresses and people start to hook up their home entertainment systems to the internet to watch shows and movies, this will be Youtube's Achilles heel - unattractive to both producers, consumers and most importantly advertisers, who want and need that traction. And, as previously discussed, there's very little in the way of nice community and loyalty - especially when compared to the massive viewership. Idiots. Arrogant idiots. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 17-Jun-08, at 4:39 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 I've seen that Vimeo has some focused groups, like the HV20 group or Vimeo HD or one specifically focused on comedy. Because of that, they have people that subscribe to certain topics or filmmakers and watch the videos and comment. So that ends up being some decent communities, even though it's still inside a walled garden to a degree, because it's 'only' the people inside Vimeo AND inside that particular group. What you're talking about is the reason that I post my videos to blip. I stick to self-promotion and iTunes... not that I have a ton of hits, haha. The point is that the extra locations weren't useful to me, for the reasons you stated. Basically, they tend to depend on some gimmick to make people want to post there, but in the long run, there's no actual traction. The traction comes from people bookmarking and RSSing your site, using the videos as a back end, so it really doesn't matter where the videos are parked, and you're not seeing much return from the community aspect of the sites as a destination. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
Oh. Immediately after sending that last message, I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=233yWq7rslI A Youtube blog entry talking about how they're already making great strides towards Youtube consumption in home entertainment systems. I realise I'm naive in thinking that because they don't do what I want them to do, they must adapt. Instead it's us who have to adapt to their monopolistic position find other ways of encouraging and enabling the traction that Bill I were talking about in previous posts on this thread. We've heard many users say, YouTube is the new TV!. Well, the YouTube Syndication team is excited to now offer a number of options to actually consume YouTube on your television sets. We're also proud to have helped many leaders in the consumer electronics space create YouTube experiences on TV. Getting YouTube right on TV is extremely challenging from both a design and technology perspective. Each of our partners' engineering and design teams had similar questions: - What would users, accustomed to a simple remote control interface for their TVs, expect given their typically much richer interaction options when surfing youtube.com? - How could the YouTube experience be personalized for TV? - How could the extra computing power and memory often required to make this work on their devices be added effectively? - What were the most important YouTube features to retain, and how would they translate to a 10-feet user experience? All these partners used the YouTube APIs to build their products. One partner's summary of their experience with the APIs: The YouTube API was very simple, but powerful. It enabled us to develop our user interface flexibly and quickly. Music to our ears! Here's a quick overview of some products that enable you to access YouTube from your living room...or anywhere else you may have your television(s)! AppleTV: In June 2007 this became the first product to offer a way to watch YouTube on your TV. Sony Bravia Internet Video Link: Last week, Sony announced the general availability of YouTube content on their Bravia TVs via the Internet Video Link. Some clips from the YouTube team at the event are linked below. Nice tie, Brent! HP MediaSmart: HP announced availability of YouTube as part of the HP MediaSmart platform. Panasonic: At CES 2008, Panasonic announced VieraCast, which allows you to access YouTube directly from your TV. The device will be available later this month. Samsung: Samsung launched their IPTV device which supports YouTube (currently only available in South Korea) in early May. TiVo: Announced that YouTube would be available on their devices. Verismo: A startup in the IPTV space, has announced availability of a YouTube-enabled device. We're excited that the YouTube APIs have enabled these products and look forward to sharing information about even more products, upgrades and innovations from our partners. We're determined to see more devices and applications Powered by YouTube so that our vision of YouTube Everywhere feels even more real to our users. Head over to the API Blog to read more about where you can expect to see YouTube other than youtube.com! Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
I am sure that they will adapt, but the question still remains can Google make money off of YT, because let's face it, they have to or sooner or later, it will go away. I still think Hulu is the closest to getting it right from a Ad perspective, if YT can someone offer both the professional content with ads and the user gen content for viral purposesthen look out... Heath Parks Media Made Easy http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh. Immediately after sending that last message, I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=233yWq7rslI A Youtube blog entry talking about how they're already making great strides towards Youtube consumption in home entertainment systems. I realise I'm naive in thinking that because they don't do what I want them to do, they must adapt. Instead it's us who have to adapt to their monopolistic position find other ways of encouraging and enabling the traction that Bill I were talking about in previous posts on this thread. We've heard many users say, YouTube is the new TV!. Well, the YouTube Syndication team is excited to now offer a number of options to actually consume YouTube on your television sets. We're also proud to have helped many leaders in the consumer electronics space create YouTube experiences on TV. Getting YouTube right on TV is extremely challenging from both a design and technology perspective. Each of our partners' engineering and design teams had similar questions: - What would users, accustomed to a simple remote control interface for their TVs, expect given their typically much richer interaction options when surfing youtube.com? - How could the YouTube experience be personalized for TV? - How could the extra computing power and memory often required to make this work on their devices be added effectively? - What were the most important YouTube features to retain, and how would they translate to a 10-feet user experience? All these partners used the YouTube APIs to build their products. One partner's summary of their experience with the APIs: The YouTube API was very simple, but powerful. It enabled us to develop our user interface flexibly and quickly. Music to our ears! Here's a quick overview of some products that enable you to access YouTube from your living room...or anywhere else you may have your television(s)! AppleTV: In June 2007 this became the first product to offer a way to watch YouTube on your TV. Sony Bravia Internet Video Link: Last week, Sony announced the general availability of YouTube content on their Bravia TVs via the Internet Video Link. Some clips from the YouTube team at the event are linked below. Nice tie, Brent! HP MediaSmart: HP announced availability of YouTube as part of the HP MediaSmart platform. Panasonic: At CES 2008, Panasonic announced VieraCast, which allows you to access YouTube directly from your TV. The device will be available later this month. Samsung: Samsung launched their IPTV device which supports YouTube (currently only available in South Korea) in early May. TiVo: Announced that YouTube would be available on their devices. Verismo: A startup in the IPTV space, has announced availability of a YouTube-enabled device. We're excited that the YouTube APIs have enabled these products and look forward to sharing information about even more products, upgrades and innovations from our partners. We're determined to see more devices and applications Powered by YouTube so that our vision of YouTube Everywhere feels even more real to our users. Head over to the API Blog to read more about where you can expect to see YouTube other than youtube.com! Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/etc. persuasion?
Brook, I would be so down with this, as it's one of my main interests as far as vlogging goes--i'm not a talking-head sort of person (though I love watchings others who are!) a list or, like others have said, maybe a group vlog or ning community or the like. or a forum? might have more ideas later. feel free to IM me or email off list. On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 concerns or desires about such a list. Thanks. -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Lauren Galanter www.laurengalanter.com www.linkedin.com/in/laureng Skype: lgalanter 610-761-4435 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
I remember back in the mid-90s, people were asking should i build my website on Geocities or Tripod?. This feels like another one of those discussions. Not sure why these sites aren't trying harder to solve a core issue: how to find video that interests me - particularly Google, since this is core to their business. Fine with me though, as we keep humming along with our media search engine and user-curated channels. Nowadays, I find new video feeds that I like through my friends' subscriptions on Mefeedia. :) When I want to interact, I usually go directly to the producer's vlog. Regards, Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Feed Me Media --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sure that they will adapt, but the question still remains can Google make money off of YT, because let's face it, they have to or sooner or later, it will go away. I still think Hulu is the closest to getting it right from a Ad perspective, if YT can someone offer both the professional content with ads and the user gen content for viral purposesthen look out... Heath Parks Media Made Easy http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Oh. Immediately after sending that last message, I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=233yWq7rslI A Youtube blog entry talking about how they're already making great strides towards Youtube consumption in home entertainment systems. I realise I'm naive in thinking that because they don't do what I want them to do, they must adapt. Instead it's us who have to adapt to their monopolistic position find other ways of encouraging and enabling the traction that Bill I were talking about in previous posts on this thread. We've heard many users say, YouTube is the new TV!. Well, the YouTube Syndication team is excited to now offer a number of options to actually consume YouTube on your television sets. We're also proud to have helped many leaders in the consumer electronics space create YouTube experiences on TV. Getting YouTube right on TV is extremely challenging from both a design and technology perspective. Each of our partners' engineering and design teams had similar questions: - What would users, accustomed to a simple remote control interface for their TVs, expect given their typically much richer interaction options when surfing youtube.com? - How could the YouTube experience be personalized for TV? - How could the extra computing power and memory often required to make this work on their devices be added effectively? - What were the most important YouTube features to retain, and how would they translate to a 10-feet user experience? All these partners used the YouTube APIs to build their products. One partner's summary of their experience with the APIs: The YouTube API was very simple, but powerful. It enabled us to develop our user interface flexibly and quickly. Music to our ears! Here's a quick overview of some products that enable you to access YouTube from your living room...or anywhere else you may have your television(s)! AppleTV: In June 2007 this became the first product to offer a way to watch YouTube on your TV. Sony Bravia Internet Video Link: Last week, Sony announced the general availability of YouTube content on their Bravia TVs via the Internet Video Link. Some clips from the YouTube team at the event are linked below. Nice tie, Brent! HP MediaSmart: HP announced availability of YouTube as part of the HP MediaSmart platform. Panasonic: At CES 2008, Panasonic announced VieraCast, which allows you to access YouTube directly from your TV. The device will be available later this month. Samsung: Samsung launched their IPTV device which supports YouTube (currently only available in South Korea) in early May. TiVo: Announced that YouTube would be available on their devices. Verismo: A startup in the IPTV space, has announced availability of a YouTube-enabled device. We're excited that the YouTube APIs have enabled these products and look forward to sharing information about even more products, upgrades and innovations from our partners. We're determined to see more devices and applications Powered by YouTube so that our vision of YouTube Everywhere feels even more real to our users. Head over to the API Blog to read more about where you can expect to see YouTube other than youtube.com! Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/etc. persuasion?
To all of those interested in this, I'm answering more as a web developer than a video artist, but I wanted to reply and let you know that if you think there's a good niche for this audience, you may want to consider building a entire site around the idea. I can imagine a site for this niche that would provide free videoblogs for these artists, as well as forums, or even some community features like adding friends, etc. If anyone is interested in having me develop a site for this, please feel free to contact me directly. Adam W. Warner http://indielab.org http://wordpressmodder.org - Original Message From: Lauren Galanter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:28:30 PM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/etc. persuasion? Brook, I would be so down with this, as it's one of my main interests as far as vlogging goes--i'm not a talking-head sort of person (though I love watchings others who are!) a list or, like others have said, maybe a group vlog or ning community or the like. or a forum? might have more ideas later. feel free to IM me or email off list. On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: Howdy Videoblogginglistfo lk. 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/sustainab ility, 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 concerns or desires about such a list. Thanks. -- _ _ _ _ ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton. com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton. com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Lauren Galanter www.laurengalanter. com www.linkedin. com/in/laureng Skype: lgalanter 610-761-4435 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
You know Frank brings up a good point here, the fact that Mefeedia has been doing a great job of video search lately. I know I am guilty of not thinking about Mefeedia as much as I should. But everytime David Meade shows me something that Mefeedia is doing or has done, I always go man that is coolWe gotta get them guys a publicist or something! ;) Heath Parks Media Made Easy http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember back in the mid-90s, people were asking should i build my website on Geocities or Tripod?. This feels like another one of those discussions. Not sure why these sites aren't trying harder to solve a core issue: how to find video that interests me - particularly Google, since this is core to their business. Fine with me though, as we keep humming along with our media search engine and user-curated channels. Nowadays, I find new video feeds that I like through my friends' subscriptions on Mefeedia. :) When I want to interact, I usually go directly to the producer's vlog. Regards, Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Feed Me Media --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am sure that they will adapt, but the question still remains can Google make money off of YT, because let's face it, they have to or sooner or later, it will go away. I still think Hulu is the closest to getting it right from a Ad perspective, if YT can someone offer both the professional content with ads and the user gen content for viral purposesthen look out... Heath Parks Media Made Easy http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Oh. Immediately after sending that last message, I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=233yWq7rslI A Youtube blog entry talking about how they're already making great strides towards Youtube consumption in home entertainment systems. I realise I'm naive in thinking that because they don't do what I want them to do, they must adapt. Instead it's us who have to adapt to their monopolistic position find other ways of encouraging and enabling the traction that Bill I were talking about in previous posts on this thread. We've heard many users say, YouTube is the new TV!. Well, the YouTube Syndication team is excited to now offer a number of options to actually consume YouTube on your television sets. We're also proud to have helped many leaders in the consumer electronics space create YouTube experiences on TV. Getting YouTube right on TV is extremely challenging from both a design and technology perspective. Each of our partners' engineering and design teams had similar questions: - What would users, accustomed to a simple remote control interface for their TVs, expect given their typically much richer interaction options when surfing youtube.com? - How could the YouTube experience be personalized for TV? - How could the extra computing power and memory often required to make this work on their devices be added effectively? - What were the most important YouTube features to retain, and how would they translate to a 10-feet user experience? All these partners used the YouTube APIs to build their products. One partner's summary of their experience with the APIs: The YouTube API was very simple, but powerful. It enabled us to develop our user interface flexibly and quickly. Music to our ears! Here's a quick overview of some products that enable you to access YouTube from your living room...or anywhere else you may have your television(s)! AppleTV: In June 2007 this became the first product to offer a way to watch YouTube on your TV. Sony Bravia Internet Video Link: Last week, Sony announced the general availability of YouTube content on their Bravia TVs via the Internet Video Link. Some clips from the YouTube team at the event are linked below. Nice tie, Brent! HP MediaSmart: HP announced availability of YouTube as part of the HP MediaSmart platform. Panasonic: At CES 2008, Panasonic announced VieraCast, which allows you to access YouTube directly from your TV. The device will be available later this month. Samsung: Samsung launched their IPTV device which supports YouTube (currently only available in South Korea) in early May. TiVo: Announced that YouTube would be available on their devices. Verismo: A startup in the IPTV space, has announced availability of a YouTube-enabled device. We're excited that the YouTube APIs have enabled these products and look forward to sharing
[videoblogging] Re: Royalty-free, public domain music to accompany videos?
Greetings - I just started posting some videos about the book I'm writing (see below). I was looking for some opera to accompany one of the videos - any suggestions on this as well as other music. Thanks - Leslie Leslie Guttman cell: 510.684.6457 fax: 510.576.1747 http://www.leslieguttman.com Equine ER: A Year in the Life of an Equine Vet Hospital (Eclipse Press, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3KrRAPALc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Royalty-free, public domain music to accompany videos?
Check out http://spinxpress.com/getmedia Fantastic search tool developed by some people from this list, which allows you to search by licence, so you can find things that are licenced for reuse by Creative Commons, or are Public Domain. If you don't know about Creative Commons, you should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons which is much more informative than the official CC website You could also search using sites like http://ccmixter.org/ where people upload CC licenced music to be shared and remixed. But I haven't seen much opera or classical on these sites - which is why I'd think your best bet was a wider search tool like SpinXpress's Getmedia. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 17-Jun-08, at 1:45 PM, Leslie Guttman wrote: Greetings - I just started posting some videos about the book I'm writing (see below). I was looking for some opera to accompany one of the videos - any suggestions on this as well as other music. Thanks - Leslie Leslie Guttman cell: 510.684.6457 fax: 510.576.1747 http://www.leslieguttman.com Equine ER: A Year in the Life of an Equine Vet Hospital (Eclipse Press, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3KrRAPALc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Found the music, now editing it?
Hi - back again, I found the opera, now how do I edit the MP3 file to get the music to start mid-way in? I'm using IMovie, Thanks - Leslie Leslie Guttman cell: 510.684.6457 fax: 510.576.1747 http://www.leslieguttman.com Equine ER: A Year in the Life of an Equine Vet Hospital (Eclipse Press, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3KrRAPALc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Interest in a mailing list re online cinema of the experimental/video art/etc. persuasion?
Hey everybody thank you so much for all the responses, I am sorry to be tardy replying - work has been limiting my time on this - but I will respond in more depth to everyone shortly. Thanks! ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Found the music, now editing it?
If you are using iMovie 08 - good luck. Easier to go back to iMovie 06. Open your media panel audio. Find the song in iTunes and drag it over to the time line - any place will do. Then trim it just like you would a movie clip. Then move it to align with the place you want in the movie. There is a slider bar below the timeline bar that lets you fade music in and out. No music fading in iMovie 08 either, I don't think. iMovie 06 can still be downloaded from the Apple web site. Apple also has great tutorials on their site for making movies. Roxanne On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Leslie Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi - back again, I found the opera, now how do I edit the MP3 file to get the music to start mid-way in? I'm using IMovie, Thanks - Leslie Leslie Guttman cell: 510.684.6457 fax: 510.576.1747 http://www.leslieguttman.com Equine ER: A Year in the Life of an Equine Vet Hospital (Eclipse Press, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3KrRAPALc [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: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Well... aha! Tying into the other thread about Macs versus PCs... If you're shooting on a Xacti (or any other camera or phone which stores video as MP4 files on memory cards), then in my opinion you're better off cutting on a PC with Sony Vegas. Vegas (which a lot cheaper than FCP but just as good for 90% of jobs) will take your files AS THEY ARE, with no importing or conversion necessary. This can save HOURS. As you say, Neil, if you have three hours of footage, then you need around three hours for conversion. WTF. All because Apple can't make FCP work with MP4 properly. But that's not all. When you convert your MP4 files for use in FCP, after you've waited all that time, you'll find that their image quality may be impaired by the conversion from 640x480 to a .dv file. Particularly a NTSC .dv file, which has a different ratio. Vegas cuts the files *as they are* - it will match the sequence settings to the clip, not vice versa. For people shooting on Xactis or little digital point-and-shoot cameras or mobile phones, Vegas is, in my opinion, a much more user-friendly experience. Shoot, cut, save. I say this as a 8-9 year user of FCP and a life-long Mac user. Apple have dropped the ball in the important area of non-DV cameras and amateur video. And don't get me started on the new iMovie. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 17-Jun-08, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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: Found the music, now editing it?
Wow, don't I feel silly now! You'd already found it. If you're using iMovie HD, click on the audio clip in the timeline, move the playhead to where you want to cut it and press Command T to cut it. Then click on the bit you want to delete and press delete. If you're using iMovie 8, then I'm afraid I have no idea... Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 17-Jun-08, at 2:02 PM, Leslie Guttman wrote: Hi - back again, I found the opera, now how do I edit the MP3 file to get the music to start mid-way in? I'm using IMovie, Thanks - Leslie Leslie Guttman cell: 510.684.6457 fax: 510.576.1747 http://www.leslieguttman.com Equine ER: A Year in the Life of an Equine Vet Hospital (Eclipse Press, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3KrRAPALc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Found the music, now editing it?
I didn't know that! Fantastic. I'm surprised and not surprised all at the same time. On 17-Jun-08, at 2:07 PM, Roxanne Darling wrote: iMovie 06 can still be downloaded from the Apple web site. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
perhaps slightly OT but try and keep the camera cool. I had one die due to the heat - it overheated, lost all colours and then finally even the lens motor broke. it gets really hot there and if you're using it a lot it's easy for the camera to overheat. so get a robust camera if you can!
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Rupert... I use a Xacti HD1A and the newest version of FCE, and have no problems whatsoever with the MP4 files. Just sayin... David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... aha! Tying into the other thread about Macs versus PCs... If you're shooting on a Xacti (or any other camera or phone which stores video as MP4 files on memory cards), then in my opinion you're better off cutting on a PC with Sony Vegas. Vegas (which a lot cheaper than FCP but just as good for 90% of jobs) will take your files AS THEY ARE, with no importing or conversion necessary. This can save HOURS. As you say, Neil, if you have three hours of footage, then you need around three hours for conversion. WTF. All because Apple can't make FCP work with MP4 properly. But that's not all. When you convert your MP4 files for use in FCP, after you've waited all that time, you'll find that their image quality may be impaired by the conversion from 640x480 to a .dv file. Particularly a NTSC .dv file, which has a different ratio. Vegas cuts the files *as they are* - it will match the sequence settings to the clip, not vice versa. For people shooting on Xactis or little digital point-and-shoot cameras or mobile phones, Vegas is, in my opinion, a much more user-friendly experience. Shoot, cut, save. I say this as a 8-9 year user of FCP and a life-long Mac user. Apple have dropped the ball in the important area of non-DV cameras and amateur video. And don't get me started on the new iMovie. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 17-Jun-08, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Neil, I'm curious, when you say you've returned everything in the 'Xacti line' does that include the new Sanyo HD-1000? Or does anyone else have experience shooting with this camera? I had the previous version of Sanyo's HD camcorder but lost it and am about to purchase a new one and would like to know how the new one fares. Thanks! Joseph Morin CEO www.StoryBids.com 949-679-8599 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Neil Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ 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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
On Jun 17, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. review of CG6 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnwLDeYSb_8amp I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. I think that's what happened to me when I imported the .mpg from my Sony PD150 into iMovie..quality was compromised. I have an old copy of Sony Vegas (from '05), I will try it. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
On Jun 17, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Big plus here. The PS type devices have the grab go feature, that larger devices don't have Cellphone cameras have the compactness, but not the quality (pinhole camera) Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Great! I'm happy to hear that there's a Xacti MP4 file that does work in a Final Cut product without conversion, but I have to say it's the exception. I wonder why. The HD1a is an HD camera, unlike most of the Xactis I've come across. Are you shooting in HD or at 640x480, and what spec of mac are you using? I'm not just making it up - and it's not just on my system - over the last year or so I've noticed a *lot* people complain about this - as Neil did in his message just now. I don't know anybody with a Xacti who's been able to make it work properly - at best it causes FCP to grind slowly, at worst to crash completely. The same for non-Xacti ps cameras cellphones, as I said. Rupert On 17-Jun-08, at 2:20 PM, David King wrote: Rupert... I use a Xacti HD1A and the newest version of FCE, and have no problems whatsoever with the MP4 files. Just sayin... David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... aha! Tying into the other thread about Macs versus PCs... If you're shooting on a Xacti (or any other camera or phone which stores video as MP4 files on memory cards), then in my opinion you're better off cutting on a PC with Sony Vegas. Vegas (which a lot cheaper than FCP but just as good for 90% of jobs) will take your files AS THEY ARE, with no importing or conversion necessary. This can save HOURS. As you say, Neil, if you have three hours of footage, then you need around three hours for conversion. WTF. All because Apple can't make FCP work with MP4 properly. But that's not all. When you convert your MP4 files for use in FCP, after you've waited all that time, you'll find that their image quality may be impaired by the conversion from 640x480 to a .dv file. Particularly a NTSC .dv file, which has a different ratio. Vegas cuts the files *as they are* - it will match the sequence settings to the clip, not vice versa. For people shooting on Xactis or little digital point-and-shoot cameras or mobile phones, Vegas is, in my opinion, a much more user-friendly experience. Shoot, cut, save. I say this as a 8-9 year user of FCP and a life-long Mac user. Apple have dropped the ball in the important area of non-DV cameras and amateur video. And don't get me started on the new iMovie. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 17-Jun-08, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, 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.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Let's see... I usually shoot at 640X480, but sometimes choose one of the HD settings. I have a newer Mac Book Pro (about a year old). To get the thing on my mac, I usually put the SD card into a usb card reader, and upload all the pics and video files together into iPhoto, then drag the videos out that I want to use and delete the rest. I'm able to drag/drop the video file from a folder right into the bin in FCE. It's FCE 4.0, and it's OSX Leopard (I update it regularly). Hope that helps! David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great! I'm happy to hear that there's a Xacti MP4 file that does work in a Final Cut product without conversion, but I have to say it's the exception. I wonder why. The HD1a is an HD camera, unlike most of the Xactis I've come across. Are you shooting in HD or at 640x480, and what spec of mac are you using? I'm not just making it up - and it's not just on my system - over the last year or so I've noticed a *lot* people complain about this - as Neil did in his message just now. I don't know anybody with a Xacti who's been able to make it work properly - at best it causes FCP to grind slowly, at worst to crash completely. The same for non-Xacti ps cameras cellphones, as I said. Rupert On 17-Jun-08, at 2:20 PM, David King wrote: Rupert... I use a Xacti HD1A and the newest version of FCE, and have no problems whatsoever with the MP4 files. Just sayin... David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org wrote: Well... aha! Tying into the other thread about Macs versus PCs... If you're shooting on a Xacti (or any other camera or phone which stores video as MP4 files on memory cards), then in my opinion you're better off cutting on a PC with Sony Vegas. Vegas (which a lot cheaper than FCP but just as good for 90% of jobs) will take your files AS THEY ARE, with no importing or conversion necessary. This can save HOURS. As you say, Neil, if you have three hours of footage, then you need around three hours for conversion. WTF. All because Apple can't make FCP work with MP4 properly. But that's not all. When you convert your MP4 files for use in FCP, after you've waited all that time, you'll find that their image quality may be impaired by the conversion from 640x480 to a .dv file. Particularly a NTSC .dv file, which has a different ratio. Vegas cuts the files *as they are* - it will match the sequence settings to the clip, not vice versa. For people shooting on Xactis or little digital point-and-shoot cameras or mobile phones, Vegas is, in my opinion, a much more user-friendly experience. Shoot, cut, save. I say this as a 8-9 year user of FCP and a life-long Mac user. Apple have dropped the ball in the important area of non-DV cameras and amateur video. And don't get me started on the new iMovie. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 17-Jun-08, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc. N --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Cool! Thank you. Interesting. You might have just influenced my next choice of Camera Assuming it will work in final cut *pro* 4 leopard, which is what I have. thanks! i guess we should store this kind of info in the wiki. how's the sound on the HD1a? Does it have the problems with motor noise that some of the older Xactis have? On 17-Jun-08, at 3:24 PM, David King wrote: Let's see... I usually shoot at 640X480, but sometimes choose one of the HD settings. I have a newer Mac Book Pro (about a year old). To get the thing on my mac, I usually put the SD card into a usb card reader, and upload all the pics and video files together into iPhoto, then drag the videos out that I want to use and delete the rest. I'm able to drag/drop the video file from a folder right into the bin in FCE. It's FCE 4.0, and it's OSX Leopard (I update it regularly). Hope that helps! David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great! I'm happy to hear that there's a Xacti MP4 file that does work in a Final Cut product without conversion, but I have to say it's the exception. I wonder why. The HD1a is an HD camera, unlike most of the Xactis I've come across. Are you shooting in HD or at 640x480, and what spec of mac are you using? I'm not just making it up - and it's not just on my system - over the last year or so I've noticed a *lot* people complain about this - as Neil did in his message just now. I don't know anybody with a Xacti who's been able to make it work properly - at best it causes FCP to grind slowly, at worst to crash completely. The same for non-Xacti ps cameras cellphones, as I said. Rupert On 17-Jun-08, at 2:20 PM, David King wrote: Rupert... I use a Xacti HD1A and the newest version of FCE, and have no problems whatsoever with the MP4 files. Just sayin... David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org wrote: Well... aha! Tying into the other thread about Macs versus PCs... If you're shooting on a Xacti (or any other camera or phone which stores video as MP4 files on memory cards), then in my opinion you're better off cutting on a PC with Sony Vegas. Vegas (which a lot cheaper than FCP but just as good for 90% of jobs) will take your files AS THEY ARE, with no importing or conversion necessary. This can save HOURS. As you say, Neil, if you have three hours of footage, then you need around three hours for conversion. WTF. All because Apple can't make FCP work with MP4 properly. But that's not all. When you convert your MP4 files for use in FCP, after you've waited all that time, you'll find that their image quality may be impaired by the conversion from 640x480 to a .dv file. Particularly a NTSC .dv file, which has a different ratio. Vegas cuts the files *as they are* - it will match the sequence settings to the clip, not vice versa. For people shooting on Xactis or little digital point-and-shoot cameras or mobile phones, Vegas is, in my opinion, a much more user-friendly experience. Shoot, cut, save. I say this as a 8-9 year user of FCP and a life-long Mac user. Apple have dropped the ball in the important area of non-DV cameras and amateur video. And don't get me started on the new iMovie. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 17-Jun-08, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line except the CG65. The others have better specs, but nothing has a better picture. And it fits in your pocket, which means you will get the shot. Battery life is poor. Buy three batteries and a quick charger. Use an online site to buy non Sanyo batteries. They run $20/each. The only negative is in order to edit you will have to convert the native mp4 files into DV. Sanyo says you can edit with mp4 files and technically you can import them into Final Cut Pro. But it doesn't really work, trust me. That conversion process will take about 1 minute per minute of footage. So if you shoot three hours, expect three hours of conversion when you come home. As an aside, working in India, if you don't have Sony, you can't get it fixed or spare parts, adapters, etc.
[videoblogging] Re: help with streched letterboxed video?
Lauren: So let me understand? You have a 4:3 delivery of 16:9 footage (which shows bars on top and bottom) and within it there is 4:3 footage being stretched to 16:9? OK, basically it's like this...They need to go into the motion tab (of the clip) in FCP and change the dimensions of the 4:3 footage itself to make it look pillar bars in the 16:9 frame. First they should check to see, if for some reason, the 4:3 footage had the option of anamorphic checked in the browser by accident. Sometimes this happens and un-checking this is the answer for it. Otherwise they will have to manually change the dimensions in the motion tab of the clip itself! I added a 4:3 clip into my 16:9 timeline and made that issue happen and here's what I got... Anamorphic (in Browser) checked The clips motion tab settings are: Basic Motion Scale is 112.5% Distort Upper Left -320 -240 Upper Right -320 -240 Lower Right -320 -240 Lower Left -320 -240 Aspect Ratio -12.5 Within a 16:9 project the 4:3 clip settings SHOULD be: Anamorphic (in Browser) UN-checked The clips motion tab settings are: Basic Motion Scale is 100% Distort Upper Left -320 -240 Upper Right -320 -240 Lower Right -320 -240 Lower Left -320 -240 Aspect Ratio -18.52 With this you should still have a 16:9 deliver on 4:3 (letterboxed) and your 4:3 footage within the 16:9 frame should be Pillar Boxed. Please let me know if you didn't understand this. I can address this in a live session of my newsletter! That one was free... ___ Michael J. Carrasquillo Director | Filmmaker | Musician michael [at] michaelcarrasquillo.com MY SITECAST: http://www.michaelcarrasquillo.com MY VIDEOCAST: http://www.thetrialsofbeingmike.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lauren Galanter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At work today one of our shows was delivered but the video is distorted. They did send it as 640x480, but it's letterboxed and the video *within* that is streched (too wide--like how video looks with square pixels at 720x480). Almost a double-letterboxing effect. I need to figure out what they did wrong to produce this (using FCP) so I can tell them how to export it correctly. Unfortunately I don't know what it was shot in, but I think it was on a pd 150. I'm kind of at a loss and would appreciate any help. If you think you might know I can send you a screen grab privately. Thanks! -- Lauren Galanter www.laurengalanter.com www.linkedin.com/in/laureng Skype: lgalanter 610-761-4435 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: help with streched letterboxed video?
You also may be getting the double-anamorphic effect that comes from changing anamorphic settings of a sequence after anamorphic clips are already in (and other such scenarios where FCP's behavior is based on relative rather than fixed changes). For this, their solution would be to manually change the aspect ratio if the clips in the motion tab, match frame and reedit the clips, or (as long as there isn't any other basic motion stuff going on) just change one clip and copy-paste basic motion attributes to the rest. This doesn't help you now of course - what the people delivering the material really need to do is edit anamorphic in an anamorphic sequence from the get go, then if they want letterboxed they can nest it into into a 4:3 sequence (or deliver 16:9 to you leaving you with all the options). Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] tft monitor
hey all, slightly off topic but I guess alot of you here spend some time looking and computer monitors so... I´ve heard apple monitors and dell are the same, is this true? I would like a reliable monitor as good as apples, but cheap as dells, is this possible? I do alot of photography, so I need correct colors. Anyone here ever went the dell way and got the apple quality? all the best, Miguel.
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
Thank you, Heath! What would mean 1000x more than publicity, though, is seeing little +mefeedia subscribe buttons next to those +youtube buttons that are popping up everywhere. :) Regards, Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Feed Me Media --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know Frank brings up a good point here, the fact that Mefeedia has been doing a great job of video search lately. I know I am guilty of not thinking about Mefeedia as much as I should. But everytime David Meade shows me something that Mefeedia is doing or has done, I always go man that is coolWe gotta get them guys a publicist or something! ;) Heath Parks Media Made Easy http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton frank@ wrote: I remember back in the mid-90s, people were asking should i build my website on Geocities or Tripod?. This feels like another one of those discussions. Not sure why these sites aren't trying harder to solve a core issue: how to find video that interests me - particularly Google, since this is core to their business. Fine with me though, as we keep humming along with our media search engine and user-curated channels. Nowadays, I find new video feeds that I like through my friends' subscriptions on Mefeedia. :) When I want to interact, I usually go directly to the producer's vlog. Regards, Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Feed Me Media --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am sure that they will adapt, but the question still remains can Google make money off of YT, because let's face it, they have to or sooner or later, it will go away. I still think Hulu is the closest to getting it right from a Ad perspective, if YT can someone offer both the professional content with ads and the user gen content for viral purposesthen look out... Heath Parks Media Made Easy http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Oh. Immediately after sending that last message, I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=233yWq7rslI A Youtube blog entry talking about how they're already making great strides towards Youtube consumption in home entertainment systems. I realise I'm naive in thinking that because they don't do what I want them to do, they must adapt. Instead it's us who have to adapt to their monopolistic position find other ways of encouraging and enabling the traction that Bill I were talking about in previous posts on this thread. We've heard many users say, YouTube is the new TV!. Well, the YouTube Syndication team is excited to now offer a number of options to actually consume YouTube on your television sets. We're also proud to have helped many leaders in the consumer electronics space create YouTube experiences on TV. Getting YouTube right on TV is extremely challenging from both a design and technology perspective. Each of our partners' engineering and design teams had similar questions: - What would users, accustomed to a simple remote control interface for their TVs, expect given their typically much richer interaction options when surfing youtube.com? - How could the YouTube experience be personalized for TV? - How could the extra computing power and memory often required to make this work on their devices be added effectively? - What were the most important YouTube features to retain, and how would they translate to a 10-feet user experience? All these partners used the YouTube APIs to build their products. One partner's summary of their experience with the APIs: The YouTube API was very simple, but powerful. It enabled us to develop our user interface flexibly and quickly. Music to our ears! Here's a quick overview of some products that enable you to access YouTube from your living room...or anywhere else you may have your television(s)! AppleTV: In June 2007 this became the first product to offer a way to watch YouTube on your TV. Sony Bravia Internet Video Link: Last week, Sony announced the general availability of YouTube content on their Bravia TVs via the Internet Video Link. Some clips from the YouTube team at the event are linked below. Nice tie, Brent! HP MediaSmart: HP announced availability of YouTube as part of the HP MediaSmart platform. Panasonic: At CES 2008, Panasonic announced VieraCast, which allows you to access YouTube directly from your TV. The device will be available
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Recommendations for a small camera (Xacti or other) to shoot in India
Neato. I like the sound - it's got a great little internal mic. This video is a good example - it's picking up the birds in the background ( http://davidleeking.com/etc/2008/06/13/walking-in-phoenix/) pretty well. It gets overpowered pretty easily, so if something's loud, it WILL distort - there's no volume knob. The HD1A (I'm guessing the HD2 or whatever the new models' called, too) has an external mic jack, which gives a little more control. No, I've not heard the motor noise when zooming (though it might very well be there - I just haven't noticed it). Yes - we SHOULD put this stuff int he wiki - good idea! David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cool! Thank you. Interesting. You might have just influenced my next choice of Camera Assuming it will work in final cut *pro* 4 leopard, which is what I have. thanks! i guess we should store this kind of info in the wiki. how's the sound on the HD1a? Does it have the problems with motor noise that some of the older Xactis have? On 17-Jun-08, at 3:24 PM, David King wrote: Let's see... I usually shoot at 640X480, but sometimes choose one of the HD settings. I have a newer Mac Book Pro (about a year old). To get the thing on my mac, I usually put the SD card into a usb card reader, and upload all the pics and video files together into iPhoto, then drag the videos out that I want to use and delete the rest. I'm able to drag/drop the video file from a folder right into the bin in FCE. It's FCE 4.0, and it's OSX Leopard (I update it regularly). Hope that helps! David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org wrote: Great! I'm happy to hear that there's a Xacti MP4 file that does work in a Final Cut product without conversion, but I have to say it's the exception. I wonder why. The HD1a is an HD camera, unlike most of the Xactis I've come across. Are you shooting in HD or at 640x480, and what spec of mac are you using? I'm not just making it up - and it's not just on my system - over the last year or so I've noticed a *lot* people complain about this - as Neil did in his message just now. I don't know anybody with a Xacti who's been able to make it work properly - at best it causes FCP to grind slowly, at worst to crash completely. The same for non-Xacti ps cameras cellphones, as I said. Rupert On 17-Jun-08, at 2:20 PM, David King wrote: Rupert... I use a Xacti HD1A and the newest version of FCE, and have no problems whatsoever with the MP4 files. Just sayin... David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] rupert%40fatgirlinohio.orgrupert% 40fatgirlinohio.org wrote: Well... aha! Tying into the other thread about Macs versus PCs... If you're shooting on a Xacti (or any other camera or phone which stores video as MP4 files on memory cards), then in my opinion you're better off cutting on a PC with Sony Vegas. Vegas (which a lot cheaper than FCP but just as good for 90% of jobs) will take your files AS THEY ARE, with no importing or conversion necessary. This can save HOURS. As you say, Neil, if you have three hours of footage, then you need around three hours for conversion. WTF. All because Apple can't make FCP work with MP4 properly. But that's not all. When you convert your MP4 files for use in FCP, after you've waited all that time, you'll find that their image quality may be impaired by the conversion from 640x480 to a .dv file. Particularly a NTSC .dv file, which has a different ratio. Vegas cuts the files *as they are* - it will match the sequence settings to the clip, not vice versa. For people shooting on Xactis or little digital point-and-shoot cameras or mobile phones, Vegas is, in my opinion, a much more user-friendly experience. Shoot, cut, save. I say this as a 8-9 year user of FCP and a life-long Mac user. Apple have dropped the ball in the important area of non-DV cameras and amateur video. And don't get me started on the new iMovie. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 17-Jun-08, at 1:49 PM, Neil Katz wrote: Neil Katz here, a journalist. I have had very good experiences with the Xacti CG65. Small, cheap, shoots well in low light, and is stable on zoom, and files sizes are small. I did an entire video story for the NY Times with that camera and even snuck a shot into a report for CBS News on national TV. http://video.on.nytimes.com/? fr_story=74e0011bd397f3fdad54e60c3b52612d009fa8bf Judge image quality for yourself. And keep in mind the NYT site is playing at about half resolution. I have purchased and returned every camera in the Xacti line
[videoblogging] Re: Any video sharing sites still worth the bother?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Bill and Lauren - great replies. I feel more attracted to Vimeo and Viddler, and less inclined to waste time elsewhere. The communities there are smaller, but way more dedicated. This lack of traction that you talk about, Bill, is a huge problem with Youtube. Youtube is still such a popular monopoly that I'm not sure they see how much of a problem it really is. If one of your videos gets popular, it just *does not* translate into views for your other videos. I have one video with 150,000 views because it's a video of a flashmob, and *none* of those viewers go on to watch any of my others. That's because most of the views come from people tuning in to the home page and clicking blindly on videos that are featured. Even if your video's not featured, if it becomes popular for some reason, it's THAT VIDEO that's popular, not YOU or your genre of videos. The analogy I'll draw is that I met someone at a party last week and she knew who I was, but I hadn't heard of her before. When I went home and googled her, I landed on an article she had written about a party that I had attended before I met her. I had read that article, but I had been sent there via probably a link from twitter. At the time I read it, I had no connection to her at all, so I went, read the information, didn't check any more of her posts and went about my business. That's how youtube works. People search for topics, like fighting, for instance. If you make a video about fighting, they'll watch it and then search for more videos about that. On top of that, IME, YouTube leaves open the section related videos and leaves the section more videos from this author closed. It's more likely that people are going to click on some picture they see and exit your stream than it is for them to open the more videos tab and THEN search through the pictures. This is also why people make sure their middle image is of a chick, preferably showing skin. They know that regardless of their topic, guys are going to click on that image to see what they can get from the chick... making their video look popular and getting them the potential to become featured and get all those extra hits. It's all a scam. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com They just don't do anything to promote the producer of the video. The idea of channels on Youtube is a joke, when you really look at it. And they serve the producer poorly with their picture quality. As IPTV progresses and people start to hook up their home entertainment systems to the internet to watch shows and movies, this will be Youtube's Achilles heel - unattractive to both producers, consumers and most importantly advertisers, who want and need that traction. And, as previously discussed, there's very little in the way of nice community and loyalty - especially when compared to the massive viewership. Idiots. Arrogant idiots. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 17-Jun-08, at 4:39 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: 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 I've seen that Vimeo has some focused groups, like the HV20 group or Vimeo HD or one specifically focused on comedy. Because of that, they have people that subscribe to certain topics or filmmakers and watch the videos and comment. So that ends up being
