Re: [videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
wow, i had no idea. i just read chance's recount as well. On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Heath heathpa...@msn.com wrote: wow makes you wonder what the heck is going onand makes me less interested in being a part of things like this... Heath http://heathparks.com/blog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Robert Millis mil...@... wrote: Just read Chance's recounting: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards Youch. Disastrous shows I can laugh off, but it's much worse with the backstory. Powering Independence www.DynamoPlayer.com On Apr 12, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Adam Quirk qu...@... wrote: Horrible Turn: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards Barrett Garese: http://www.barrettgarese.com/post/516372282/season-one-episode-17 NewTeeVee: http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/the-streamy-awards-a-producers-apology-and-its-three-fails/ On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Michael Sullivan sulleleven@ ...wrote: didnt follow it. where's a good source of this coverage? On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
barrett's post is right on target in terms of solutions, sounds like On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Heath heathpa...@msn.com wrote: wow makes you wonder what the heck is going onand makes me less interested in being a part of things like this... Heath http://heathparks.com/blog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Robert Millis mil...@... wrote: Just read Chance's recounting: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards Youch. Disastrous shows I can laugh off, but it's much worse with the backstory. Powering Independence www.DynamoPlayer.com On Apr 12, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Adam Quirk qu...@... wrote: Horrible Turn: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards Barrett Garese: http://www.barrettgarese.com/post/516372282/season-one-episode-17 NewTeeVee: http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/the-streamy-awards-a-producers-apology-and-its-three-fails/ On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Michael Sullivan sulleleven@ ...wrote: didnt follow it. where's a good source of this coverage? On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and perfect sound, surely - not about ohmygosh the Orpheum Theatre and the self-satisfied LA types in the room? And above all, given that it's about web video, it should have been short. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Apr 2010, at 23:17, elbowsofdeath wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [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: Happy VideoBloggingWeek2010
Gena, wonderful. RSS feed has been added. And I see you're a frequent poster too, I like that. Day 2... The Knife Game. Please people, do not attempt this at home. I have many years of injury free Knife Game training and would hate for an amateur to get seriously hurt while attempting to duplicate this very dangerous stunt. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/04/12/the-knife-game/ You have been warned. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, compumavengal compumaven...@... wrote: Day 2 up and running. http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com/2010/04/tranquility-alley-day-2-videoblogging.html Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan sulleleven@ wrote: Sophie Flying Cheap Kite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYt6OtKIgw4 ;) Sull On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM, mgmoon mgmoon@ wrote: Well, it's Sunday. It starts today... Videobloggingweek2010. April 11-17 Grab your camcorders and shoot some video. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net p.s. Here's Day 1's vlog: http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/04/11/geo-fricken-caching/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Happy VideoBloggingWeek2010
Day 3 with a bit of music and art http://bit.ly/cHxJGd Watching other videos when I can. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mgmoon mgm...@... wrote: Well, it's Sunday. It starts today... Videobloggingweek2010. April 11-17 Grab your camcorders and shoot some video. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net p.s. Here's Day 1's vlog: http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/04/11/geo-fricken-caching/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] question: live streaming from events
What service do you prefer to livestream from events? Ustream, CoverItLive, something else? Why do you prefer it? We've used Justin.tv for some events very successfully. For the tech geeks--They allow you to use Quicktime Broadcaster and hook into their servers which allows for better quality. They even will take off ads if you say you're from a non-profit. Ill be glad to share my contact's info. Eddie Codel now work at Ustream.tv as their Production Coordinator. As a long time videoblogger, I would trust his opinion on the state of their current service. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv wrote: Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org [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/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Yes. An awards show sucked. Who knew. The meat of the matter is that it showed the Hollywoodyist of the Hollywoodys, not the best web video. It was about commercial success and not creativity. They showed people that web video is about selling to the highest bidder, getting sponsors, brand integration, and not changing the TV paradigm. From all of the documentation and promotion I've seen this was their main purpose, and in that way they were successful. I'm an IAWTV member and voted for the streamys, tried to shift the focus ever so slightly toward creativity and away from mindless tv wannabe bullshit. I'm hoping to get a group email from the top brass asking what can be done to evolve the organization. If they don't make some big changes, I don't see the point of their existence. Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -Original Message- From: Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:33:31 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv wrote: Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links 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:
Re: [videoblogging] question: live streaming from events
I've been successfully livestreaming presentations at a conference this week using ustream - it has worked flawlessly. David On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: What service do you prefer to livestream from events? Ustream, CoverItLive, something else? Why do you prefer it? We've used Justin.tv for some events very successfully. For the tech geeks--They allow you to use Quicktime Broadcaster and hook into their servers which allows for better quality. They even will take off ads if you say you're from a non-profit. Ill be glad to share my contact's info. Eddie Codel now work at Ustream.tv as their Production Coordinator. As a long time videoblogger, I would trust his opinion on the state of their current service. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
this event was the first live stream i ever got to see. our lovely country setting does not come with the internet, and our lovely superheroine series routinely gets deleted for content after being flagged by pornographers who don't like our standards. i wanted to see who prevails. i was grateful for the double audio feed, as it prevented comprehension of what appeared to be being said. i was listening to the musical portions wondering if the second feed would be revealed as another big joke once the beats blended but they never did. somehow there's no money in internet video came thru loud and clear. i am beginning to think, with our measly $3K a month in direct sales that we are internet stars. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
I'd say at $3k a month in sales you are in the top 1% of people making money in web video. You're also not doing advertising, right? On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:28 AM, daredolls dared...@gmail.com wrote: this event was the first live stream i ever got to see. our lovely country setting does not come with the internet, and our lovely superheroine series routinely gets deleted for content after being flagged by pornographers who don't like our standards. i wanted to see who prevails. i was grateful for the double audio feed, as it prevented comprehension of what appeared to be being said. i was listening to the musical portions wondering if the second feed would be revealed as another big joke once the beats blended but they never did. somehow there's no money in internet video came thru loud and clear. i am beginning to think, with our measly $3K a month in direct sales that we are internet stars. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
A thought re bad for the industry There is no industry. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, Blip, Vimeo, a hundred other web video service providers, and thousands of web video producers would disagree. I've been making a living doing web video production and editing for the past two years. It's still fledgling, but it's an industry. And yeah, this was bad for everyone involved. People are rightfully pissed. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, brook hinton bhin...@gmail.com wrote: A thought re bad for the industry There is no industry. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
That depends if you include the web porn video industry. Im not going to get into a long debate about whether daredolls material can be labelled porn, in some ways no, or at least very soft, in other ways its clearly fetish stuff that will get the same sort of reaction from people video hosts as porn. I remain bemused that daredolls posts here still try to find alternative explanations for why they get banned from video sites sometimes, the reason should be pretty darn obvious and undeniable. Regardless of any disagreement about this stuff, I think its a pretty safe bet the potential to get their viewers to spend money is based on the same sorts of impulses that make people spend lots of money on porn. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk qu...@... wrote: I'd say at $3k a month in sales you are in the top 1% of people making money in web video. You're also not doing advertising, right? On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:28 AM, daredolls dared...@... wrote: this event was the first live stream i ever got to see. our lovely country setting does not come with the internet, and our lovely superheroine series routinely gets deleted for content after being flagged by pornographers who don't like our standards. i wanted to see who prevails. i was grateful for the double audio feed, as it prevented comprehension of what appeared to be being said. i was listening to the musical portions wondering if the second feed would be revealed as another big joke once the beats blended but they never did. somehow there's no money in internet video came thru loud and clear. i am beginning to think, with our measly $3K a month in direct sales that we are internet stars. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath steve@ wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] question: live streaming from events
At ISOC-NY we've been using livestream without problems - we switched from ustream a couple of years back just because the landing page seemed a little prettier. Our webcaster Lou Klepner recently purchased a couple of remote cams and the wirecast switching software - you can see him putting it through its paces at http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=1208 (starts about 8 minutes in). We've had some demand, particularly on our recent webcast of Eben Moglen, http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=1338 for theora streaming, but I'm yet to find any solution. I mollified by posting html5 ogv after the event. j On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, David King davidleek...@gmail.com wrote: I've been successfully livestreaming presentations at a conference this week using ustream - it has worked flawlessly. David On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: What service do you prefer to livestream from events? Ustream, CoverItLive, something else? Why do you prefer it? We've used Justin.tv for some events very successfully. For the tech geeks--They allow you to use Quicktime Broadcaster and hook into their servers which allows for better quality. They even will take off ads if you say you're from a non-profit. Ill be glad to share my contact's info. Eddie Codel now work at Ustream.tv as their Production Coordinator. As a long time videoblogger, I would trust his opinion on the state of their current service. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: Streamy disaster
Despite my OP on the Streamys being rather negative, and my tendency to be negative and unproductive in general, I still care rather a lot about this industry. We are well beyond the era where I would get caught up in fears that the industrial aspirations of some would harm the non-industry side of vlogging andits non-commercial potential for humans. We got through the era of insane hype and buzz, we avoided the potential tyranny of the first generation of would be new media moguls with their studio or network aspirations. We avoided the spectacle of seeing everybody sell out or go insane with product placement etc. Unfortunately most of those things were avoided due to stupid failures on the part of various people and companies that believed too much in the hype, had no clue what they were doing, or just went in the wrong direction. This may not have had too detrimental an effect on the industry if everything else had been in place to make the industry succeed and grow on the scale people expected it should, and if existing media were unable to harness internet distribution for themselves within a reasonable timeframe. But that hasnt been the case, it was always going to be a steep uphill battle, with everything from sponsorship to promotion to audience numbers and show budgets. Time, innovative solutions, a lot of talented people working well together, and plenty of good luck were needed, along with the creation of some vehicles to carry this stuff onwards. I dont think this has happened, there are talented people with passion and some useful companies and services, but as an outsider it doesnt look like the vehicles that have been built are really fit for purpose. There is no way that I am well-informed enough to really know if the International Academy of Web Television is effective, how it works, what it even is in practical terms, and I am out of date regarding what other partnerships/institutions may have been formed to further the industry. But this trainwreck of a Streamys makes me want to know. I know that if it was down to me I would overreact, assume the brands and institutions involved with the streams are soiled to an extent that apologies and 'will do better next time' is not enough, press the self-destruct button, start again with something untainted whilst taking account of the lessons learnt from the past. I dont know who or how many, but somewhere there are people or companies that should never be allowed near the image of the industry again, they dropped a ball that was so important they should not get a second chance. Personally I feel that one possible way for the industry to differentiate and succeed, now that the traditional media are reaching internet eyeballs, is to play on other aspects and potential advantages of being on the web. Its way easier said than done, but surely the internet gives people ways to organise differently to the old models, ways to come together and achieve something without passing responsibility for a few people or entities that may stumble, ways to harness the very thin line between creators and viewers that exists on the web. Not easy, plenty of perils and downsides, but Im surprised new structures havent been experimented with. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk qu...@... wrote: Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, Blip, Vimeo, a hundred other web video service providers, and thousands of web video producers would disagree. I've been making a living doing web video production and editing for the past two years. It's still fledgling, but it's an industry. And yeah, this was bad for everyone involved. People are rightfully pissed. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, brook hinton bhin...@... wrote: A thought re bad for the industry There is no industry. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] LIVES - open source video editing / effects app
Another open source video editing package (that adds some live video features to boot) that looks interesting: http://lives.sourceforge.net On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: This is the link to the software page: http://trac.videolan.org/vlmc/ Videomaker has a posted about the new open source video editing software: http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2010/03/7232-vlc-released-new-open-source-editor Cool! The VLC guys were showing off some screenshots of the editor they were working on this past summer at the Open Video Conference. If you've ever used the VLC player, you know it plays anything you throw out it. They said their editor would similarly be able to handle any codec you put into it. This would be amazing to avoid all the transcoding we do now. Incompatible formats is what scares away beginners from editing video. I cant wait till a mac version comes out. Jay -- ___ 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] 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/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Michael Sullivan: what will help web video is better web video. Hey Michael: I wholeheartedly agree, especially with respect to content! Yet while content is king I think it also behooves both Vlogger and Web Video Producer alike, as well as those wearing both hats, to consider issues that potentially influence viewership. And such was the subtext within my last post. As for me, speaking personally... I'll take solid content over slick production values with no substance, and I tend to think most viewers are there too. After all; with literally hundreds of traditional television venues to chose from, and millions of websites vying for viewer attention? If what we provide isn't grabbing attention consistently, then we're toast by the kick of a mouse. And once gone we may never get that lost viewer back again. Whereas too much of the latter, is bad for us all. Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] LIVES - open source video editing / effects app
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Brook Hinton bhin...@gmail.com wrote: Another open source video editing package (that adds some live video features to boot) that looks interesting: http://lives.sourceforge.net Gabriel, the LiVES developer, has reached out to some on this group. So far it's only on Linux though he has tried porting it to mac. He created it for VJ's who mix video at live music events. I've never personally used it but hear that it's a little weird to edit video with. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Google to open source VP8
This is pretty awesome: http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/google-to-open-source-vp8-for-html5-video/ That could seriously change the codec equation for the better. Yep, its here. An open source codec that supposedly can compete with H264. I look forward to actually seeing what the codec looks like...and how it works in the browser. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Google to open source VP8
I'm so bored by the idea of even more epic codec battles. Apple/ Safari/iPhone/iPad in h264 versus Google/Chrome/Phones/Set Top Box/etc in ogg/vp8. Versus Microsoft and whatever they choose to do. No compatibility between browsers for HTML5. Seems like Apple are hardening their position on various things, and so are Google, Adobe, etc. Pretty boring for all of us, having to cater for all or pick sides. Agreed. But I think that ultimately open is always better and worth the hassle to make standard. Remember that we are still in the very early days of web video. What happens now determines how things will be in the future. I love Apple and use all they have...but I dont like the idea that I depend on their benevolence. Jobs will die...and instead of a hippie entrepreneur, we'll get the ex-President of Pepsi leading the company again. So the mantra is keep it open...but focus on creating. In the end, that's what really counts. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] TV episode will be shot on DSLR
Online video is not TV. Online video is not TV. Online video is not... But this is interesting: http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/10/house-season-finale-shot-entirely-with-canon-5dmkii/ The TV show, House, will shoot an episode entirely on the Canon 5D. I found it interesting since several folks here have this camera and do their work on it. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Google to open source VP8
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: I love Apple and use all they have...but I dont like the idea that I depend on their benevolence. Jobs will die...and instead of a hippie entrepreneur, we'll get the ex-President of Pepsi leading the company again. So the mantra is keep it open...but focus on creating. In the end, that's what really counts. Thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't get brought up enough (ever?). - Verdi -- Training for a triathlon and raising money for The Leukemia Lymphoma Society. http://training.michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
yep. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Quirk qu...@wreckandsalvage.com wrote: Yes. An awards show sucked. Who knew. The meat of the matter is that it showed the Hollywoodyist of the Hollywoodys, not the best web video. It was about commercial success and not creativity. They showed people that web video is about selling to the highest bidder, getting sponsors, brand integration, and not changing the TV paradigm. From all of the documentation and promotion I've seen this was their main purpose, and in that way they were successful. I'm an IAWTV member and voted for the streamys, tried to shift the focus ever so slightly toward creativity and away from mindless tv wannabe bullshit. I'm hoping to get a group email from the top brass asking what can be done to evolve the organization. If they don't make some big changes, I don't see the point of their existence. Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -Original Message- From: Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:33:31 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv wrote: Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and perfect sound, surely - not about ohmygosh the Orpheum Theatre and the self-satisfied LA types in the room? And above all, given that it's about web video, it should have been short. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Apr 2010, at 23:17, elbowsofdeath wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] TV episode will be shot on DSLR
Jay: here is a great source of regularly updated info on any of the Canon DSLRs ( and a few other makes as well.) Roger. http://blog.planet5d.com/planet5D To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com From: jay.ded...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:23:06 -0400 Subject: [videoblogging] TV episode will be shot on DSLR Online video is not TV. Online video is not TV. Online video is not... But this is interesting: http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/10/house-season-finale-shot-entirely-with-canon-5dmkii/ The TV show, House, will shoot an episode entirely on the Canon 5D. I found it interesting since several folks here have this camera and do their work on it. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
