Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
I agree with all of you. $25-100 for 1-2 days work is not acceptable, and debases the market. There are a lot of filler video content work for QA sites being parcelled out that pays appallingly, as I think we discussed before. On the other hand, the proposition that was offered by Turnhere was that you shouldn't spend more than 3-4 hours in total (pre-production to delivery) making each 1 minute video, for businesses in walking distance from your house. They have a checklist, provide all the documents, etc. They don't want anything fancy - just a basic to- camera interview with some cutaways and a clip of the company's signage. So it should work out as $50-70 per hour. They also won't take on newbies or students - they require professional commercial experience. And have QA standards for everything submitted. I'm not sure about the WMV thing. They specify that you upload H264 3000kpbs 864x486, and talk about how they provide iPod/iPhone compatible files to show businesses. Odd that they have a WMV download for their intro webinar. I'm not pimping them - I haven't even signed up with them. The commoditization of video production concerns me because it affects the price and value of genuine creative filmmaking in this arena. But I just wanted to put it out there for discussion and get some of the facts clear. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 21 Jan 2010, at 04:12, Bohuš wrote: Hiya, Just a word of background, I do TV production for a living. Mostly independent stuff, but some broadcast stuff... I've been approached a lot by companies like this, especially start- ups. They want me to find ways to reduce costs, and still deliver a large percentage of what I do to clients. The problem is that I do actually have to make a living off of making video, and that's not going to happen if each one takes a day or two to make and the most I can hope to get is $25-100. It's great if you're on vacation, take a few fun videos, and then get a check for $25... that's great. The problem is when I'm asked to create videos with the same level of production that I usually charge many time more for. You're right... there are a lot of start-ups out there who think that the best business model is to create a venue for other people to do all the work, and then they make their cash off the backs of others. Ebay is a great example of that. They've created this quasi-community (less and less these days) and behave as if they were a store like Amazon (with special quasi-promotions, advertising, etc.), but they don't actually stock anything or even lick a postage stamp. They've made their fortune by creating this virtual market. That's fair since everyone is making a little something, but what do I get out of making a video review for $25-50? It's fine if you're having fun, but how to move to the next level? What affects me now is that many clients who approach me now think that this is the status quo for video production. I love the FLIP camera (I have several of them, after all...), but its ease has made my clients think that all video is just that easy. it's funny how shocked people are when they call me for a gig, and I don't jump at the chance to bring thousands of dollars worth of gear to their $200 shoot. Oh well, these topics have been covered before here so I'll quiet down. I love the video revolution, and I love that more people are using video to communicate than ever, but I don't love opportunistic companies who devalue the industries that they try to exploit. TurnHere.com, who are an agency who match up filmmakers with small businesses, have a new promo going for US Canadian filmmakers. You can offer free 1 minute videos to small businesses, and Turnhere will pay you $200 to make them. It's a very small amount of money, and is undercutting other people who are trying to do the same thing on an individual basis. But the requirements are much lower than your average bespoke video job. It's pretty much video by numbers. Turn up for an hour, shoot an interview with the proprietor, shoot some B roll, cut a 1 minute film, get paid $200. I looked into their business model. I'd want to here from video producers who did a lot of work for them. Seems more like http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia. Ironically, Turnhere's orientation video is a downloading WMV: http://producers.turnhere.com/orientation-webinar-video.html Guess some there doesn't know how to do simple transcoding? Sorry to be a scrooge, but I hate companies that just want to profit from other people's work. Like an Amway scheme. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker
Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
It looks like video production is going the way of photography. It will be harder and harder to make a living from delivering high production quality video when it is increasingly in the hands of more people. It also means we'll see larger sums of money traditionally paid to one person be split up between a wider group of people. (i.e. in the example of this startup) Competition is an exciting thing. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: I agree with all of you. $25-100 for 1-2 days work is not acceptable, and debases the market. There are a lot of filler video content work for QA sites being parcelled out that pays appallingly, as I think we discussed before. On the other hand, the proposition that was offered by Turnhere was that you shouldn't spend more than 3-4 hours in total (pre-production to delivery) making each 1 minute video, for businesses in walking distance from your house. They have a checklist, provide all the documents, etc. They don't want anything fancy - just a basic to- camera interview with some cutaways and a clip of the company's signage. So it should work out as $50-70 per hour. They also won't take on newbies or students - they require professional commercial experience. And have QA standards for everything submitted. I'm not sure about the WMV thing. They specify that you upload H264 3000kpbs 864x486, and talk about how they provide iPod/iPhone compatible files to show businesses. Odd that they have a WMV download for their intro webinar. I'm not pimping them - I haven't even signed up with them. The commoditization of video production concerns me because it affects the price and value of genuine creative filmmaking in this arena. But I just wanted to put it out there for discussion and get some of the facts clear. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 21 Jan 2010, at 04:12, Bohuš wrote: Hiya, Just a word of background, I do TV production for a living. Mostly independent stuff, but some broadcast stuff... I've been approached a lot by companies like this, especially start- ups. They want me to find ways to reduce costs, and still deliver a large percentage of what I do to clients. The problem is that I do actually have to make a living off of making video, and that's not going to happen if each one takes a day or two to make and the most I can hope to get is $25-100. It's great if you're on vacation, take a few fun videos, and then get a check for $25... that's great. The problem is when I'm asked to create videos with the same level of production that I usually charge many time more for. You're right... there are a lot of start-ups out there who think that the best business model is to create a venue for other people to do all the work, and then they make their cash off the backs of others. Ebay is a great example of that. They've created this quasi-community (less and less these days) and behave as if they were a store like Amazon (with special quasi-promotions, advertising, etc.), but they don't actually stock anything or even lick a postage stamp. They've made their fortune by creating this virtual market. That's fair since everyone is making a little something, but what do I get out of making a video review for $25-50? It's fine if you're having fun, but how to move to the next level? What affects me now is that many clients who approach me now think that this is the status quo for video production. I love the FLIP camera (I have several of them, after all...), but its ease has made my clients think that all video is just that easy. it's funny how shocked people are when they call me for a gig, and I don't jump at the chance to bring thousands of dollars worth of gear to their $200 shoot. Oh well, these topics have been covered before here so I'll quiet down. I love the video revolution, and I love that more people are using video to communicate than ever, but I don't love opportunistic companies who devalue the industries that they try to exploit. TurnHere.com, who are an agency who match up filmmakers with small businesses, have a new promo going for US Canadian filmmakers. You can offer free 1 minute videos to small businesses, and Turnhere will pay you $200 to make them. It's a very small amount of money, and is undercutting other people who are trying to do the same thing on an individual basis. But the requirements are much lower than your average bespoke video job. It's pretty much video by numbers. Turn up for an hour, shoot an interview with the proprietor, shoot some B roll, cut a 1 minute film, get paid $200. I looked into their business model. I'd want to here from video producers who did a lot of work for them. Seems more like http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia. Ironically, Turnhere's orientation video is a downloading
Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
On the other hand, the proposition that was offered by Turnhere was that you shouldn't spend more than 3-4 hours in total (pre-production to delivery) making each 1 minute video, for businesses in walking distance from your house. They have a checklist, provide all the documents, etc. They don't want anything fancy - just a basic to- camera interview with some cutaways and a clip of the company's signage. So it should work out as $50-70 per hour. They also won't take on newbies or students - they require professional commercial experience. And have QA standards for everything submitted. Yeah, they seem to be doing a lot of marketing and reach out to video producers recently. I've heard of this offer from several different sources. And they way I understood it, for most jobs they send you...all they want is for you to shoot it. They edit the video in house. But I really wonder about their business model. If they're paying you $200 to record the video, and they have costs on the back end, what are they charging the clients for a stand up interview and some b-roll? I'd love to hear from someone who's done a job from them. Sounds like it's Video Production Company 2.0. I wonder if they'll go after the wedding market. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Amen to that. One of the parts of the transition to computer based video that I've hated, hated, hated, is the many codecs and the myriad flavors of each. Flash was one of those, I'll be glad to see it go. Before I get a head of myself, Flash still has a long life yet. Very useful for ease of use. But if Google decide to move away from it...Youtube will help set the tone of the next evolution for web video. Many steps between here and there. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
It looks like video production is going the way of photography. It will be harder and harder to make a living from delivering high production quality video when it is increasingly in the hands of more people. Totally agreed. But to be more specific, it's now now enough to have expensive equipment. You must also know how to use it. Now anyone can buy a Canon Mark V and make completely gorgeous photos and video without effort. The technology does it for you. But what will separate the competition is how the equipment is used. There's so much more to making a video than pushing a button. And people are just buying their own equipment and documenting themselves. When they hire someone else, its because they want something special. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. - verdi On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: Amen to that. One of the parts of the transition to computer based video that I've hated, hated, hated, is the many codecs and the myriad flavors of each. Flash was one of those, I'll be glad to see it go. Before I get a head of myself, Flash still has a long life yet. Very useful for ease of use. But if Google decide to move away from it...Youtube will help set the tone of the next evolution for web video. Many steps between here and there. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links -- Michael Verdi http://michaelverdi.com http://talkbot.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
Jay is so right. You can have the best tech all you want. Video storytellers are special and with the right exposure and talent they will make a living over someone who can buy a nice camera. Chris Sent from my mobile. On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like video production is going the way of photography. It will be harder and harder to make a living from delivering high production quality video when it is increasingly in the hands of more people. Totally agreed. But to be more specific, it's now now enough to have expensive equipment. You must also know how to use it. Now anyone can buy a Canon Mark V and make completely gorgeous photos and video without effort. The technology does it for you. But what will separate the competition is how the equipment is used. There's so much more to making a video than pushing a button. And people are just buying their own equipment and documenting themselves. When they hire someone else, its because they want something special. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] video syndication/ananlytics
What PRO video synycation/analytics services do you suggest other then Tubemogul and which one is your favorite/ Thank you, Adriana Kaegi http://dearaddy.com
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
I still have high hopes for the future of Ogg. Will be interesting to see what the next phase entails and if Google will even contribute to Ogg or put out it's own project (typical). Regarding Flash... We should frame this properly Flash obviously has infinite uses beyond the standard web video player and will continue to be heavily used by developers and consumers. What I welcome is the ability to not depend on Flash for the standard web video player and let it be supported by native browser/html standards and get consensus on codecs and/or let web browser users configure it (prompt). Sull On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 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: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: Turnhere free videos
One of my students makes videos for TurnHere, and it's been a very good experience for him. From what he's said, they don't expect you to commit very much time to each video - you shoot it, you edit it, but you're only expected to be on-site gathering footage/interviews for 30 min., then a couple/few hours to edit. Very simple and to the point. You also have to do a (paid) audition video to ensure quality. It seems to me a pretty fair situation, geared toward hiring more entry-level video producers. I'm also under the impression - and I could be wrong - that my student sometimes receives more than the $200 quoted here. This kind of thing could very easily be treated as an internship exploiting video students for free labor, but it seems to me they're at least making an attempt to treat their producers fairly. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: So much to catch up on here. Before I do, I thought I'd let you know about this: TurnHere.com, who are an agency who match up filmmakers with small businesses, have a new promo going for US Canadian filmmakers. You can offer free 1 minute videos to small businesses, and Turnhere will pay you $200 to make them. It's a very small amount of money, and is undercutting other people who are trying to do the same thing on an individual basis. But the requirements are much lower than your average bespoke video job. It's pretty much video by numbers. Turn up for an hour, shoot an interview with the proprietor, shoot some B roll, cut a 1 minute film, get paid $200. I also know a local business who is selling 3 minute films to local businesses for £1000-£1500 ($1700-2300) Anyway, there it is Rupert
[videoblogging] YouTube Gets A Makeover
Google have stripped down and improved the YouTube video page design. More about it at this ReadWriteWeb article: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_gets_a_makeover_launches_new_video_player_watch_pages.php I like it - it's much cleaner. The right hand side is all related videos and a 'featured video'. There's a pull-down menu for choosing what resolution you want to see it in - up to 1080p. There are two separate buttons to let you see it in it's intended resolution and in fullscreen. The Share options have changed - much simpler and clearer. Bad points: The 'More Videos by this User' panel is now even more hidden away - it's now accessed via a link at the top of the page, next to the channel name, saying 34 videos There's no more 1-5 ratings, which is probably a good thing - but they've replaced it with badly weighted Thumbs Down and Like (Add To Favourites) buttons, which I think raises the bar for saying you like something rather to high. Maybe I like something, but don't want to add it to my favourites? But I can imagine a lot of YT morons just clicking Thumbs Down on a video five seconds in and then clicking away. The biggest problem with their pages, of course, is that they still haven't done anything about the comments. They should filter for obscenities better, and not just allow flagging for spam. Kids love watching youtube videos of cartoons and cute animals - but even cartoons have just unbelievable angry hateful comments beneath them. I don't really want to have to stop my daughter watching funny things on YouTube when she learns to read. I don't want her exposed to that level of hate. I don't want MYSELF exposed to it, for god's sake. Google need to sort this out NOW, since Chad Hurley and Steve Chen clearly never gave a shit. You can join the experiment by clicking on this link: http://youtube.com/watch5?enable=1next_url=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjqxENMKaeCU and you can opt out again by clicking here: http://youtube.com/watch5?enable=0next_url=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjqxENMKaeCU Rupert http://twittervlog.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Flash is under some threat in most of the areas its been strong at in the past. Canvas tag, css transitions, downloadable fonts, and various other things mean it can be gradually replaced. I welcome this, not least because of the cost of flash development tools. But it will take a long time whatever happens, and for flash to be beaten on most fronts these various wonderful web standards must actually work properly in all major browsers. Flash could be largely gone from the web in 3-10 years depending on how all this stuff plays out, or it may be around for a very long time, I guess what happens with multitouch and mobile web will also have bearing on flashes health in years to come, these could be areas where it will eaither struggle or conquer new territory. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull sullele...@... wrote: I still have high hopes for the future of Ogg. Will be interesting to see what the next phase entails and if Google will even contribute to Ogg or put out it's own project (typical). Regarding Flash... We should frame this properly Flash obviously has infinite uses beyond the standard web video player and will continue to be heavily used by developers and consumers. What I welcome is the ability to not depend on Flash for the standard web video player and let it be supported by native browser/html standards and get consensus on codecs and/or let web browser users configure it (prompt). Sull On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
There's a lot of legacy flash content - youtube included. j On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: Flash could be largely gone from the web in 3-10 years -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
As for the Youtube HTML5 experiment, I like it, it uses less CPU on my macbook pro, although the saving is not hugely dramatic because of flash becoming more efficient in that regard not so long ago. It is missing quite a few features compared to the youtube flash version, and Ive no idea what Googles future plans are regarding ogg, I doubt converting all the videos to another format will be fun for them but on the otherhand they might be able to make ogg encoding less energy cost intensive than h264. Even so, as long as they have to provide h264 version to work with certain browsers, I cant see them being too keen to have all youtube videos in many different formats. As with posts in the past I still question how ogg will ever dominate video if its only advantage is to do with licensing, as licensing issues with h264 dont affect many of us so what is the point really? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: Flash is under some threat in most of the areas its been strong at in the past. Canvas tag, css transitions, downloadable fonts, and various other things mean it can be gradually replaced. I welcome this, not least because of the cost of flash development tools. But it will take a long time whatever happens, and for flash to be beaten on most fronts these various wonderful web standards must actually work properly in all major browsers. Flash could be largely gone from the web in 3-10 years depending on how all this stuff plays out, or it may be around for a very long time, I guess what happens with multitouch and mobile web will also have bearing on flashes health in years to come, these could be areas where it will eaither struggle or conquer new territory. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull sulleleven@ wrote: I still have high hopes for the future of Ogg. Will be interesting to see what the next phase entails and if Google will even contribute to Ogg or put out it's own project (typical). Regarding Flash... We should frame this properly Flash obviously has infinite uses beyond the standard web video player and will continue to be heavily used by developers and consumers. What I welcome is the ability to not depend on Flash for the standard web video player and let it be supported by native browser/html standards and get consensus on codecs and/or let web browser users configure it (prompt). Sull On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
As with posts in the past I still question how ogg will ever dominate video if its only advantage is to do with licensing, as licensing issues with h264 dont affect many of us so what is the point really? This is a good question. Not sure I know the answer. But why did Firefox gain so much traction, and open up to other free browers? Explorer was a free to us users. I guess the creative class wanted more control and ability to customize/play. Feels the same way now. Developers are excited by HTML5 and ogg/theora because they are no profit-based restrictions based. We want logic. But future versions of ogg/theora must be useful and helpful in order to be succeed. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Well there are likely quite a lot of developers who are excited about various things in html5, including the video tag. They may be excited about it because it is potentially elegant and flexible and a standard that will work on a variety of browsers platforms one day, and you dont need to buy flash, learn actionscript or use someone elses flash video player. They may enjoy the development process more if everything is done in css, html javascript rather than having to use something else when dealing with video. These things have real practical implications for how and what they create, and so the principals and beliefs about standards, openness, profit, control have many important consequences for developers in practice. But interest in html5 video tag is not exactly the same as interest in ogg, because there are browsers using h264 with html5 video tag, and at this point in time using ogg rather than h264 does not offer any technical advantage beyond firefox compatibility. Lots of developers love firefox so its going to be messy, especially for developers who want to use the myriad of h264 videos that already exist on the web in their application - they can do it if their users are on safari or chrome (or even chrome frame on IE), but firefox and normal IE will spoil the party. Throw in the presently hideous realities when it comes to creators of video having nice workflows for encoding their stuff to ogg, and the ever increasing use of h264 in hardware and software that can play, edit or record video, and you can probably see why I question the practical consequences of pushing for greater ogg use. Unless google create a megaogg with various practical advantages, or weird things happen in the world of browsers or h2634 licensing terms, its quite possible that all the patents for technologies used by h264 will have expired before ogg comes to dominate, thus eliminating oggs one advantage. I think patents only last 20 years? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: As with posts in the past I still question how ogg will ever dominate video if its only advantage is to do with licensing, as licensing issues with h264 dont affect many of us so what is the point really? This is a good question. Not sure I know the answer. But why did Firefox gain so much traction, and open up to other free browers? Explorer was a free to us users. I guess the creative class wanted more control and ability to customize/play. Feels the same way now. Developers are excited by HTML5 and ogg/theora because they are no profit-based restrictions based. We want logic. But future versions of ogg/theora must be useful and helpful in order to be succeed. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Vimeo has also added an HTML5 player (though they intend to keep it as a companion to Flash): http://vimeo.com/blog:268 Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: We've mentioned rumors before, but here it is: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_begins_to_support_html5.php An HTML5 video player will allow videos to be viewed without Adobe's Flashplayer plug-in, videos will load faster and developers will be able to build all kinds of other intriguing features into a media delivery scheme based on the next version of HTML. For now users will need to sign-up the HTML5 preview on Test Tube and they'll need to be using either Chrome, Safari or the Chrome frame in IE. The biggest benefit of HTML5 support is that it frees users from the need to use proprietary plug-ins like Flash player or Microsoft's Silverlight by using a simple bit of code to render video. (Note this caveat regarding the lack of codec consensus, however.) If you've used Google's Chrome much, you've probably seen how often Flash player crashes in that browser. Firefox doesn't deal with Flash well, either. Here's how I understand it: If Google does it right, you wont notice the difference. Video will be beautiful and lovely online. But for developers and creators, the options will multiply because we wont be stuck fucking with the constraints of Flash players. Flash has helped make watching online video easy. Its done its job, thanks. Now go sit in the corner with Real Audio. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] question about website overlay
Hello, I again have a question which to you may seem first grade, but I don't know how to do it :) So... I would like to put an overlay of Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin websites over my client's talking (he's talking about them). So instead of him speaking those names out, I'd like to put them visually. Is there any way I can do this without filming a computer screen with these pages open or doing a screen shot? I have little idea how to embed them as a quality footage as if a real website is appearing on the screen. Thanks much! Loreta
Re: [videoblogging] question about website overlay
So... I would like to put an overlay of Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin websites over my client's talking (he's talking about them). So instead of him speaking those names out, I'd like to put them visually. Is there any way I can do this without filming a computer screen with these pages open or doing a screen shot? I have little idea how to embed them as a quality footage as if a real website is appearing on the screen. There are programs that let you easily record images on your computer...and edit into a video. very common and easy to learn. What machine are you using (PC or mac)? What video editing software? jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: question about website overlay
hi Jay, PC. Editing with Sony Vegas Platinum 8. Please let me know how to do this. Thanks. Loreta --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: So... I would like to put an overlay of Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin websites over my client's talking (he's talking about them). So instead of him speaking those names out, I'd like to put them visually. Is there any way I can do this without filming a computer screen with these pages open or doing a screen shot? I have little idea how to embed them as a quality footage as if a real website is appearing on the screen. There are programs that let you easily record images on your computer...and edit into a video. very common and easy to learn. What machine are you using (PC or mac)? What video editing software? jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
