[videoblogging] Open Source survelliance

[Jay dedman]

It's awesome that people can now organize online and be their own media.
But there are also some possible repercussions.
US authorities seem to watch videos as much as teenage boys.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080909-the-revolution-will-be-streamed-rnc-arrests-rooted-in-youtube.html

The affidavit, which lays out the basis for the preconvention raid on a
protest group calling itself the Republican National Convention Welcoming
Committee, describes a year-long investigation that ultimately involved
officers from multiple law enforcement agencies infiltrating the group to
monitor its plans. Initially, however, police had merely monitored the
group's Web site to gather "open source" intelligence. The formal
investigation was launched last August, just two days after police noted the
appearance on the site of a YouTube "trailer" showing "several persons
dressed in 'black bloc' attire" and wielding bolt-cutters, Molotov
cocktails, and bowling-balls to the soundtrack of Blondie's "One Way or
Another."

Police also cited the appearance in February of a second online video, the
"Video Map of the St. Paul Points of Interest," which appeared to highlight
potential targets for direct actions. The video was posted by Erik Oseland,
one of six activists now facing terrorism charges under Minnesota's version
of the federal PATRIOT Act. Another of the six, Garrett Fitzgerald, was
identified by an informant as one of the participants in the original
"trailer" video.

Yet another of the preconvention raids targeted a group whose whole raison
d'être is video production: the I-Witness Video collective. The group films
police/activist interaction during large-scale protests, and provided
evidence that ultimately helped to exonerate hundreds arrested during the
2004 Republican National Convention in New York.  Over the course of this
year's convention protests, police would make some 800 arrests, and the city
is already bracing for lawsuits.


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790


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

[videoblogging] Re: Open Source survelliance

[Heath]

Well, first off, you gotta go, "well duh", of course police and the 
goverment are going to moniter YT and other sites.Heck they may 
even be monitering this site as wellI mean if you are going to 
put yourself out there in that wayit's going to happen.  It all 
goes back to what you are willing to have "out there".I mean who 
needs illegal wiretaps and survalliece when you make video's telling 
everyone what you want to do.be smart, is all I'm saying

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> It's awesome that people can now organize online and be their own 
media.
> But there are also some possible repercussions.
> US authorities seem to watch videos as much as teenage boys.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080909-the-revolution-will-
be-streamed-rnc-arrests-rooted-in-youtube.html
> 
> The affidavit, which lays out the basis for the preconvention raid 
on a
> protest group calling itself the Republican National Convention 
Welcoming
> Committee, describes a year-long investigation that ultimately 
involved
> officers from multiple law enforcement agencies infiltrating the 
group to
> monitor its plans. Initially, however, police had merely monitored 
the
> group's Web site to gather "open source" intelligence. The formal
> investigation was launched last August, just two days after police 
noted the
> appearance on the site of a YouTube "trailer" showing "several 
persons
> dressed in 'black bloc' attire" and wielding bolt-cutters, Molotov
> cocktails, and bowling-balls to the soundtrack of Blondie's "One 
Way or
> Another."
> 
> Police also cited the appearance in February of a second online 
video, the
> "Video Map of the St. Paul Points of Interest," which appeared to 
highlight
> potential targets for direct actions. The video was posted by Erik 
Oseland,
> one of six activists now facing terrorism charges under Minnesota's 
version
> of the federal PATRIOT Act. Another of the six, Garrett Fitzgerald, 
was
> identified by an informant as one of the participants in the 
original
> "trailer" video.
> 
> Yet another of the preconvention raids targeted a group whose whole 
raison
> d'être is video production: the I-Witness Video collective. The 
group films
> police/activist interaction during large-scale protests, and 
provided
> evidence that ultimately helped to exonerate hundreds arrested 
during the
> 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.  Over the course 
of this
> year's convention protests, police would make some 800 arrests, and 
the city
> is already bracing for lawsuits.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Jay dedman]

Couple of recent articles in the NYTimes about the progess of web shows made
by commercial networks.
Their point is that no one's made the "big hit" yet that will really excite
people to regularly start watching episodic shows online.
The networks are certainly trying hard though.

It's funny because we had this discussion here several years ago: Personal
videoblogging vs "shows"
Both are certainly valid, but different art forms.
all i know is that I hope the talent ive seen from people here get what they
deserve.
Wish it wasnt just about who you know.


http://bit.ly/3y5nFK

> To get to the point where viewers are choosing between "Two and a Half Men"
> on 
> CBSand
>  a situation comedy on YouTube, the industry needs better distribution
> models, more professional backing and financing, and third-party measurement
> of traffic.
>
> The medium is missing something like a TV Guide for Web video — that
> magazine's owners and others are scrambling to become the industry standard.
> As a result, advertisers "sometimes have trouble navigating" the market, Mr.
> Scannell said. Similarly, the industry needs a reliable third-party arbiter
> of traffic analytics, something akin to Nielsen's ratings service for
> television. Not surprisingly, Nielsen and a plethora of other companies are
> striving to be that source, but an industry standard has not yet emerged.
>
> Then there is the living room problem.
>
> "We need the TVs in the living rooms to be integrated with the Internet,"
> said Ron Richards, the director of marketing and product management for
> Revision3, which calls itself a "television network for the Internet
> generation."
>

http://bit.ly/O5acB

Many "original" series on network Web sites are simply marketing tools for
television shows. And a look at a few current, more truly original Web
series with television connections demonstrates that if you're not packaging
"Big Brother" outtakes, it helps to have an independent revenue stream.
Nielsen isn't covering these things yet.


Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790


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




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[schlomo rabinowitz]

It's sad to say, but the Who You Know will always be a part of this business
of entertainment.  There are some shows that I think are brilliant, but they
just dont know anyone who can help them make their way through the economic
landscape.
There are a couple made between the coasts that are great AND get noticed.
 Like Midwest Teen Sex Show; great stuff and they have gotten a lot of press
and job oppourtunites because of their good work.

There's a reason people move to NY/LA for entertainment work; its where the
networking happens and, for myself, thats how I get the better jobs I've
had.  Face-to-face meeting with people who have work/money to give.

Has the internet and online video specifically changed that all that much?
Or has ole-fashioned Get In Their Face still the preferred model for you
folks on this list?  Curious for your thoughts on that.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  A handshake is still
the best way to meet someone.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> all i know is that I hope the talent ive seen from people here get what
> they
> deserve.
> Wish it wasnt just about who you know.
>
>
> --
Schlomo Rabinowitz
http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
http://hatfactory.net
AIM:schlomochat


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

[videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Heath]

I still think it's face to face networking that get's you noticed, at 
least if you are trying to do a show.  As far as personal vlogging 
goes, I really wonder how many people care about that anymore.  I 
mean to watch it and comment on it, etc.  I don't see the same fire 
and desire about personal storytelling as I did when I was first 
startingI am sure part of that is just how things evolve, 
etcbutit just seems to have waned

Now as far as the convergance of the internet and TV, the answer is 
so simple, it's crazy simple.If I could make it, I would, the key 
is the price point of courseinternet in a box, it's all I'm 
saying..

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's sad to say, but the Who You Know will always be a part of this 
business
> of entertainment.  There are some shows that I think are brilliant, 
but they
> just dont know anyone who can help them make their way through the 
economic
> landscape.
> There are a couple made between the coasts that are great AND get 
noticed.
>  Like Midwest Teen Sex Show; great stuff and they have gotten a lot 
of press
> and job oppourtunites because of their good work.
> 
> There's a reason people move to NY/LA for entertainment work; its 
where the
> networking happens and, for myself, thats how I get the better jobs 
I've
> had.  Face-to-face meeting with people who have work/money to give.
> 
> Has the internet and online video specifically changed that all 
that much?
> Or has ole-fashioned Get In Their Face still the preferred model 
for you
> folks on this list?  Curious for your thoughts on that.
> 
> The more things change, the more they stay the same.  A handshake 
is still
> the best way to meet someone.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > all i know is that I hope the talent ive seen from people here 
get what
> > they
> > deserve.
> > Wish it wasnt just about who you know.
> >
> >
> > --
> Schlomo Rabinowitz
> http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> http://hatfactory.net
> AIM:schlomochat
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Brook Hinton]

In my dreams, decisions connected to the quality of creative output are made
by anonymous judges looking at submissions in which the author's names have
been blacked out to avoid any "who you know" bias whatsoever.
In my naive youth, I assumed people at least tried to act as though that
were the case because of course everyone wants quality and hard work, not
social skills and personal popularity, to be determine what gets through the
gates.

Now I am old and cynical and know, too late,  that It is so. not. true.

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] Finally, indie film/video on itunes for $. For a hefty fee.

[Brook Hinton]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080909-tunecore-will-put-your-indie-film-on-itunes.html

>
> ___
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
> studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>



-- 
___
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: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[schlomo rabinowitz]

Actually, I think for personal vlogging its even more so that face-to-face
interaction helps readership to your blog.  Well, that, and just being a
part of various communities.
I would be hard-pressed to think that someone actually watches my personal
vids without knowing me on some sort of level.  Otherwise, why would you?
 My personal videoblog was made primarily for my Mom to keep up with me; its
something that only friends would really be interested in
watching/commenting.

The personal revolution is not dead, its just PERSONAL. small, intimate.



On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   I still think it's face to face networking that get's you noticed, at
> least if you are trying to do a show. As far as personal vlogging
> goes, I really wonder how many people care about that anymore. I
> mean to watch it and comment on it, etc. I don't see the same fire
> and desire about personal storytelling as I did when I was first
> startingI am sure part of that is just how things evolve,
> etcbutit just seems to have waned
>
> Now as far as the convergance of the internet and TV, the answer is
> so simple, it's crazy simple.If I could make it, I would, the key
> is the price point of courseinternet in a box, it's all I'm
> saying..
>
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "schlomo rabinowitz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It's sad to say, but the Who You Know will always be a part of this
> business
> > of entertainment. There are some shows that I think are brilliant,
> but they
> > just dont know anyone who can help them make their way through the
> economic
> > landscape.
> > There are a couple made between the coasts that are great AND get
> noticed.
> > Like Midwest Teen Sex Show; great stuff and they have gotten a lot
> of press
> > and job oppourtunites because of their good work.
> >
> > There's a reason people move to NY/LA for entertainment work; its
> where the
> > networking happens and, for myself, thats how I get the better jobs
> I've
> > had. Face-to-face meeting with people who have work/money to give.
> >
> > Has the internet and online video specifically changed that all
> that much?
> > Or has ole-fashioned Get In Their Face still the preferred model
> for you
> > folks on this list? Curious for your thoughts on that.
> >
> > The more things change, the more they stay the same. A handshake
> is still
> > the best way to meet someone.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > all i know is that I hope the talent ive seen from people here
> get what
> > > they
> > > deserve.
> > > Wish it wasnt just about who you know.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > http://hatfactory.net
> > AIM:schlomochat
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Schlomo Rabinowitz
http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
http://hatfactory.net
AIM:schlomochat


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

[videoblogging] Re: AVI to MOV freeware?

[hoclides]

Hi Rupert,

 MPEG Streamclip: that's the same software I've used and though it's
the only freeware to actually produce a perfect H264 *.mov, it failed
to carry the soundtrack on to the new file. I've tried everything I
could: from streamline copying the audio to another mp3 file with the
soundtrack apart. Have you had this problem, Rupert? And if so, how to
fix it? Sorry about the amount of questions but I'm a complete noob
when it comes to QuickTime...

cheers
Felipe

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave and Felipe,
> 
> MPEG Streamclip is the answer.  Dave, I replied to your last post  
> asking about this, and recommending MPEG Streamclip - did you not see  
> it?  There's no need to buy a product for transcoding videos.
> 
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv
> 
> On 7-Sep-08, at 4:53 PM, daveacbliptv wrote:
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "hoclides"  wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi guys and gals,
>  >
>  > it's me again. I've been trying to export some video files from  
> AVI to
>  > MOV (H264).
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > Felipe
>  >
>  > www.kidyoyo.com
>  >
> 
> Hi Felipe,
> 
> I don't think there are free converters because of the QT codec.
> 
> I tried but all were shareware with a big logo over the result.
> 
> I think Quicktime Pro is the main answer - still deciding whether to
> get it myself.
> 
> Cheers, daveac
> 
> http://daveac.blip.tv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Sull]

i tend to agree with mister schlomo.
depends what your "personal videos" are too.
are they produced, artistic, entertaining, stylistic?
or are they talking head vids with the primary purpose of basic
communication?
if the latter, than i dont know if that can be called an art form.
it's a video message.
unless you are being fake.  still, i wouldnt consider it art.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM, schlomo rabinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>   Actually, I think for personal vlogging its even more so that
> face-to-face
> interaction helps readership to your blog. Well, that, and just being a
> part of various communities.
> I would be hard-pressed to think that someone actually watches my personal
> vids without knowing me on some sort of level. Otherwise, why would you?
> My personal videoblog was made primarily for my Mom to keep up with me; its
> something that only friends would really be interested in
> watching/commenting.
>
> The personal revolution is not dead, its just PERSONAL. small, intimate.
>
>
>


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: AVI to MOV freeware?

[Rupert]

Hmm.  You and Dave have mirroring problems. He has audio with no  
picture, and you have picture with no audio.
AVIs are a problem.
Another program you could try is Super C
http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html
You could try is converting to another intermediate format - maybe  
another type of mov or a wmv file.
If that doesn't work, then I'd think there's something wonky with the  
file.
Or perhaps you need updated codecs - you could download the XP Codec  
Pack - you can Google for that.
I'm afraid I'm stuck beyond that - sorry.
Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv

On 9-Sep-08, at 2:33 PM, hoclides wrote:

Hi Rupert,

MPEG Streamclip: that's the same software I've used and though it's
the only freeware to actually produce a perfect H264 *.mov, it failed
to carry the soundtrack on to the new file. I've tried everything I
could: from streamline copying the audio to another mp3 file with the
soundtrack apart. Have you had this problem, Rupert? And if so, how to
fix it? Sorry about the amount of questions but I'm a complete noob
when it comes to QuickTime...

cheers
Felipe

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > Hi Dave and Felipe,
 >
 > MPEG Streamclip is the answer. Dave, I replied to your last post
 > asking about this, and recommending MPEG Streamclip - did you not see
 > it? There's no need to buy a product for transcoding videos.
 >
 > Rupert
 > http://twittervlog.tv
 >
 > On 7-Sep-08, at 4:53 PM, daveacbliptv wrote:
 >
 > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "hoclides"  wrote:
 > >
 > > Hi guys and gals,
 > >
 > > it's me again. I've been trying to export some video files from
 > AVI to
 > > MOV (H264).
 > >
 > > Thanks,
 > > Felipe
 > >
 > > www.kidyoyo.com
 > >
 >
 > Hi Felipe,
 >
 > I don't think there are free converters because of the QT codec.
 >
 > I tried but all were shareware with a big logo over the result.
 >
 > I think Quicktime Pro is the main answer - still deciding whether to
 > get it myself.
 >
 > Cheers, daveac
 >
 > http://daveac.blip.tv
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >






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

Re: [videoblogging] Finally, indie film/video on itunes for $. For a hefty fee.

[Rupert]

Finally!  A way for ordinary punters to sell video on iTunes!  What  
took them so long?
But the upfront costs are bullshit.
Tunecore are great for distributing music.  They have a very fair  
cost structure and ethical terms of service.  They've made their  
reputation by not having bad ToS and costs like so many other  
companies that'll put your stuff on iTunes.
But surely this is nonsense.  You don't pay Tunecore an upfront fee  
like this to distribute a 60 minute album.  And there's no reason  
there should be any more costs in distributing a movie on iTunes than  
music.
Either iTunes are ripping them off, or they're ripping off filmmakers  
themselves.
And 60 or 90 minutes.  Really.  Come on.  Where's the package for  
distributing short videos?
I'm disappointed in Tunecore.  I was hoping they'd lead the way in  
doing what was best for artists.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv

On 9-Sep-08, at 1:39 PM, Brook Hinton wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080909-tunecore-will-put-your- 
indie-film-on-itunes.html

 >
 > ___
 > Brook Hinton
 > film/video/audio art
 > www.brookhinton.com
 > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
 >

-- 
___
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]






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

[videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Sheila English]

Interesting. NY Times seems to really be paying attention. Last
Wednesday I was interviewed by NY Times for an article coming out next
month. This was specific to what we're doing in the publishing
industry, but the questions were about online video and book trailers. 

It's always great to see online video get big media attention!

Sheila

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Couple of recent articles in the NYTimes about the progess of web
shows made
> by commercial networks.
> Their point is that no one's made the "big hit" yet that will really
excite
> people to regularly start watching episodic shows online.
> The networks are certainly trying hard though.
> 
> It's funny because we had this discussion here several years ago:
Personal
> videoblogging vs "shows"
> Both are certainly valid, but different art forms.
> all i know is that I hope the talent ive seen from people here get
what they
> deserve.
> Wish it wasnt just about who you know.
> 
> 
> http://bit.ly/3y5nFK
> 
> > To get to the point where viewers are choosing between "Two and a
Half Men"
> > on
CBSand
a situation comedy on YouTube, the industry needs better distribution
> > models, more professional backing and financing, and third-party
measurement
> > of traffic.
> >
> > The medium is missing something like a TV Guide for Web video — that
> > magazine's owners and others are scrambling to become the industry
standard.
> > As a result, advertisers "sometimes have trouble navigating" the
market, Mr.
> > Scannell said. Similarly, the industry needs a reliable
third-party arbiter
> > of traffic analytics, something akin to Nielsen's ratings service for
> > television. Not surprisingly, Nielsen and a plethora of other
companies are
> > striving to be that source, but an industry standard has not yet
emerged.
> >
> > Then there is the living room problem.
> >
> > "We need the TVs in the living rooms to be integrated with the
Internet,"
> > said Ron Richards, the director of marketing and product
management for
> > Revision3, which calls itself a "television network for the Internet
> > generation."
> >
> 
> http://bit.ly/O5acB
> 
> Many "original" series on network Web sites are simply marketing
tools for
> television shows. And a look at a few current, more truly original Web
> series with television connections demonstrates that if you're not
packaging
> "Big Brother" outtakes, it helps to have an independent revenue stream.
> Nielsen isn't covering these things yet.
> 
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Sheila English]

I just hired an account exec who lives in Manhattan. I do think
face-to-face networking makes a difference. 
And that makes the struggle even harder for those who aren't in LA or
NY. We have our Head of Production in LA and she will go to events and
meetings there, but we really needed to be in NYC. Once we started
sending people out into the field to network we saw a dramatic
increase in orders. 

Sheila

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's sad to say, but the Who You Know will always be a part of this
business
> of entertainment.  There are some shows that I think are brilliant,
but they
> just dont know anyone who can help them make their way through the
economic
> landscape.
> There are a couple made between the coasts that are great AND get
noticed.
>  Like Midwest Teen Sex Show; great stuff and they have gotten a lot
of press
> and job oppourtunites because of their good work.
> 
> There's a reason people move to NY/LA for entertainment work; its
where the
> networking happens and, for myself, thats how I get the better jobs I've
> had.  Face-to-face meeting with people who have work/money to give.
> 
> Has the internet and online video specifically changed that all that
much?
> Or has ole-fashioned Get In Their Face still the preferred model for you
> folks on this list?  Curious for your thoughts on that.
> 
> The more things change, the more they stay the same.  A handshake is
still
> the best way to meet someone.
> 
> 

[videoblogging] Pixel Heads Network show Ask The Experts

[Sheila English]

I discovered this show when it hit my radar for video distribution
articles and videos. They interviewed the CEO of TubeMogul and I
wanted to find out what was new there.
They have some great guests! People who work or have worked at Disney
TV, CNN, Sony, etc. 
I was interviewed and I talked about how my company has done well with
online video, etc. If anyone is interested the podcast is up on Ask
the Experts, and there are a bunch of really great interviews by a lot
of knowledgeable people. Nice site set up too.

http://www.pixelheadsnetwork.com/

There are a lot of people here on this group that would make great
guests for this show. 

Sheila

[videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Heath]

I think that works in areas where you have a large vlogging 
community...but I don't see a lot of "hey I was just surfing around 
and found your site" happening much anymore in personal 
vlogging...there is just so much stuff out there...I mean just trying 
to find something new is dauntingI mean just think about it, just 
4 years ago, you could watch every vlog out there, probably in just a 
couple of hours time...if that longNow?!?I have trouble 
keeping up with the 20 or so I watch reguarly...(speaking of which, I 
need to add you to my zune, yes...I said zune) But I hope you are 
right, I hope it will always be on some levelPERSONAL.  ;)

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think for personal vlogging its even more so that face-
to-face
> interaction helps readership to your blog.  Well, that, and just 
being a
> part of various communities.
> I would be hard-pressed to think that someone actually watches my 
personal
> vids without knowing me on some sort of level.  Otherwise, why 
would you?
>  My personal videoblog was made primarily for my Mom to keep up 
with me; its
> something that only friends would really be interested in
> watching/commenting.
> 
> The personal revolution is not dead, its just PERSONAL. small, 
intimate.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   I still think it's face to face networking that get's you 
noticed, at
> > least if you are trying to do a show. As far as personal vlogging
> > goes, I really wonder how many people care about that anymore. I
> > mean to watch it and comment on it, etc. I don't see the same fire
> > and desire about personal storytelling as I did when I was first
> > startingI am sure part of that is just how things evolve,
> > etcbutit just seems to have waned
> >
> > Now as far as the convergance of the internet and TV, the answer 
is
> > so simple, it's crazy simple.If I could make it, I would, the 
key
> > is the price point of courseinternet in a box, it's all I'm
> > saying..
> >
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> > "schlomo rabinowitz"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > It's sad to say, but the Who You Know will always be a part of 
this
> > business
> > > of entertainment. There are some shows that I think are 
brilliant,
> > but they
> > > just dont know anyone who can help them make their way through 
the
> > economic
> > > landscape.
> > > There are a couple made between the coasts that are great AND 
get
> > noticed.
> > > Like Midwest Teen Sex Show; great stuff and they have gotten a 
lot
> > of press
> > > and job oppourtunites because of their good work.
> > >
> > > There's a reason people move to NY/LA for entertainment work; 
its
> > where the
> > > networking happens and, for myself, thats how I get the better 
jobs
> > I've
> > > had. Face-to-face meeting with people who have work/money to 
give.
> > >
> > > Has the internet and online video specifically changed that all
> > that much?
> > > Or has ole-fashioned Get In Their Face still the preferred model
> > for you
> > > folks on this list? Curious for your thoughts on that.
> > >
> > > The more things change, the more they stay the same. A handshake
> > is still
> > > the best way to meet someone.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Jay dedman  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > all i know is that I hope the talent ive seen from people here
> > get what
> > > > they
> > > > deserve.
> > > > Wish it wasnt just about who you know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > > http://hatfactory.net
> > > AIM:schlomochat
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Schlomo Rabinowitz
> http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> http://hatfactory.net
> AIM:schlomochat
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Two NYTimes articles on Web Video

[Heath]

.wasn't one of the big things about vlogging being able to 'be' 
personal, to talk, to share, to grow

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i tend to agree with mister schlomo.
> depends what your "personal videos" are too.
> are they produced, artistic, entertaining, stylistic?
> or are they talking head vids with the primary purpose of basic
> communication?
> if the latter, than i dont know if that can be called an art form.
> it's a video message.
> unless you are being fake.  still, i wouldnt consider it art.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM, schlomo rabinowitz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 
> >   Actually, I think for personal vlogging its even more so that
> > face-to-face
> > interaction helps readership to your blog. Well, that, and just 
being a
> > part of various communities.
> > I would be hard-pressed to think that someone actually watches my 
personal
> > vids without knowing me on some sort of level. Otherwise, why 
would you?
> > My personal videoblog was made primarily for my Mom to keep up 
with me; its
> > something that only friends would really be interested in
> > watching/commenting.
> >
> > The personal revolution is not dead, its just PERSONAL. small, 
intimate.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [videoblogging] Finally, indie film/video on itunes for $. For a hefty fee.

[Brook Hinton]

I wonder how much is Tunecore's doing and how much is just them passing on
bs from Apple though.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Finally! A way for ordinary punters to sell video on iTunes! What
> took them so long?
> But the upfront costs are bullshit.
> Tunecore are great for distributing music. They have a very fair
> cost structure and ethical terms of service. They've made their
> reputation by not having bad ToS and costs like so many other
> companies that'll put your stuff on iTunes.
> But surely this is nonsense. You don't pay Tunecore an upfront fee
> like this to distribute a 60 minute album. And there's no reason
> there should be any more costs in distributing a movie on iTunes than
> music.
> Either iTunes are ripping them off, or they're ripping off filmmakers
> themselves.
> And 60 or 90 minutes. Really. Come on. Where's the package for
> distributing short videos?
> I'm disappointed in Tunecore. I was hoping they'd lead the way in
> doing what was best for artists.
>
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv
>
>
> On 9-Sep-08, at 1:39 PM, Brook Hinton wrote:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080909-tunecore-will-put-your-
> indie-film-on-itunes.html
>
> >
> > ___
> > Brook Hinton
> > film/video/audio art
> > www.brookhinton.com
> > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
> >
>
> --
> ___
> 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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>



-- 
___
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] Finally, indie film/video on itunes for $. For a hefty fee.

[Rupert]

Yeah.  They should make that plain.  Perhaps they will.  They're very  
clear with their music fees about what goes to Apple.


On 9-Sep-08, at 8:42 PM, Brook Hinton wrote:

I wonder how much is Tunecore's doing and how much is just them  
passing on
bs from Apple though.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 > Finally! A way for ordinary punters to sell video on iTunes! What
 > took them so long?
 > But the upfront costs are bullshit.
 > Tunecore are great for distributing music. They have a very fair
 > cost structure and ethical terms of service. They've made their
 > reputation by not having bad ToS and costs like so many other
 > companies that'll put your stuff on iTunes.
 > But surely this is nonsense. You don't pay Tunecore an upfront fee
 > like this to distribute a 60 minute album. And there's no reason
 > there should be any more costs in distributing a movie on iTunes than
 > music.
 > Either iTunes are ripping them off, or they're ripping off filmmakers
 > themselves.
 > And 60 or 90 minutes. Really. Come on. Where's the package for
 > distributing short videos?
 > I'm disappointed in Tunecore. I was hoping they'd lead the way in
 > doing what was best for artists.
 >
 > Rupert
 > http://twittervlog.tv
 >
 >
 > On 9-Sep-08, at 1:39 PM, Brook Hinton wrote:
 >
 > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080909-tunecore-will-put-your-
 > indie-film-on-itunes.html
 >
 > >
 > > ___
 > > Brook Hinton
 > > film/video/audio art
 > > www.brookhinton.com
 > > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
 > >
 >
 > --
 > ___
 > 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]
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 >
 >

-- 
___
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]






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

[videoblogging] Re: Budgeting software

[mattfeldman78]

Try to get Movie Magic from bittotorrent---but be careful of viruses.
Also, I recommend Michael Wiese's books--heres a link with some sample 
budgets on his site-http://shop.mwp.com/pages/film-making-resources.

Contact me off list if you need more help.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Brook.  Yeah, I'd continue using Excel but I need to present  
> this budget in a more structured form, and I see that some of these  
> apps combine scheduling, budgeting and databases of rates.  I'll try  
> to remember to let you know what I choose and what it's like.
> 
> On 3-Sep-08, at 12:23 PM, Brook Hinton wrote:
> 
> Movie Magic is the Avid/FCP of the biz, but I just use excel.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
> 
>  > Does anyone here use Movie or TV budgeting software for your 
shows or
>  > in your day jobs? There are a few packages available. I've always
>  > just used Excel, but I want to get one now and I just need a
>  > recommendation before I buy.
>  >
>  > Raindance Canada lists these:
>  > Movie Magic
>  > Showbiz Budgeting & Actualization
>  > Cinergy Budgeting
>  > Easy Budget Movie Budgeting Software
>  > Gorilla Budgeting & Scheduling Software
>  > BoilerPlate - Film & TV Budget Templates for Independents
>  > Production Pro Budget
>  >
>  > I know, I know, it's a little bit OT - but the film I'm budgeting 
for
>  > is quite videobloggy ;)
>  >
>  > Thanks in expectation of deafening silence,
>  >
>  > Rupert
>  > http://twittervlog.tv
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> -- 
> ___
> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] ruudelmendorp wants to keep up with you on Twitter

[ruudelmendorp]

To find out more about Twitter, visit the link below:

http://twitter.com/i/2fc9a95bfcfdbb28650c5a9fde1719f76a3fcc72

Thanks,
-The Twitter Team

About Twitter

Twitter is a unique approach to communication and networking based on the 
simple concept of status. What are you doing? What are your friends doing—right 
now? With Twitter, you may answer this question over SMS, IM, or the Web and 
the responses are shared between contacts.

This message was sent by a Twitter user who entered your email address. If 
you'd prefer not to receive emails when other people invite you to Twitter, 
click here:
http://twitter.com/i/optout/bfecd59be3749088a15816e2bcdfad8289d003b2