[videoblogging] Re: encoding 16:9 for iPod on PC

[Bill Cammack]

I use a mac.  I don't know it that makes instructions different from a
PC.  I've never clicked anything that says "low complexity".  When you
get to the selection area, "Main" is selected by default.  I click
"Baseline" and that's it.  From FCP, for instance:

Export to Mpeg4
Compression: h.264
640x360
1400 kbps
30 fps (or 24, depending)
Select "Baseline"

Also, check out http://www.freevlog.org/ for their tutorials.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> I've been happily using QT Pro on the PC to convert 4:3 DV into
iPod-compatible 320x240 baseline 
> h.264 @ 608kpbs ever since the the first video iPod was introduced.
Now I've been persuaded to start
> shooting 16:9 and I'm wondering how to best to encode it for iPod. A
couple of things puzzle me.
> 
> 1) I note that in the spec
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcaststechspecs.html it gives the
newer option:
> H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 x 480, 30 frames per sec.,
Low-Complexity version of the Baseline Profile 
> with AAC-LC audio up to 160 kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v,
.mp4, and .mov file formats
> 
> However the h.264 options in QT Pro only give 'baseline' or 'main'
but no 'low-complexity'?
> 
> 2) Googling around I see some mention of 640x352 as being the
optimum size for 16:9 - why not 640x360?
> 
> All advice appreciated.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Joly
> 
> punkcast.com
> 
> 
> ---
>  WWWhatsup NYC
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> ---
>

[videoblogging] Another One Bites The Dust (VideoEgg) Re: Stage6 flipped

[Bill Cammack]

Here we go again. :)

This message came through from VideoEgg, which I would never have
heard of, except you were forced to use them to upload stuff to
Current.TV.

Same deal, earlier notice so people can get their videos.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

Attention: my.videoegg.com users

It is with our sincerest regret to inform you that we will be closing
the doors on the Videoegg Publisher Platform and related services at
http://my.videoegg.com/. You can download all of your content from our
servers, so be sure to stop by our site to reclaim your belongings.

Our last day of service will be May 31, 2008. Account creation and
video uploading are already disabled.

We understand that you may have some questions and direct you to our
updated FAQ to find the answers to common questions. It's been a great
ride, so let's enjoy these last months together, reminisce about how
far we've come, and finish strong with some awesome video blogging.

Thank you for your participation and for your support of Videoegg.
It's been a pleasure working with you.

Best regards,

Videoegg Staff


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah. There are threads appearing on stage6 forums about where
people are moving to, 
> the scramble has begun.
> 
> eg:
> 
> http://www.stage6.com/forum/712/19420/
> 
> Things that would have been attractive about stage6 were quality,
res & filesize limits, 
> existing familiarity with Divx format and/or having hardware that
played it. Also as divx 
> files are avi, and avi is still a popular format for certain
sections of users, divx may have 
> been favoured for offline playability on Windows.
> 
> So there are opportunities for video hosts to win these sorts of
potential content creator 
> users over. If you are a video host who has been testing higher res
h264-based flash 
> playback privately, now might be a good time to whack it out as an
alpha or beta whilst 
> the world of 'who does high quality best' is in shift following the
disappearance of stage6. 
> Or highlighting any existing high-res, long clip, divx compatibility
or other attractive 
> features also makes sense.
> 
> I guess a few sites support the uploading of divx, do any others
make use of the divx stuff 
> for embedded video playback of this stuff in browser?
>  
> Unfortunately it sounds like some of stage6's features also made it
a more attractive 
> destination for people pirating material in full length at high
quality in a format some 
> really prefer, so they had quite a lot of problems with this. I also
just read that there was 
> some sort of server compromise earlier this year, some defacement
and compromise of 
> user account details.
> 
> As usual I probably make the mistake of being a bit too net & vlog
centric when criticising 
> DivX and writing them off. Stage6 ended up being a giant pain in the
ass for them, and its 
> unclear if the bad will generated by the closing of stage6 will mean
the whole episode did 
> more harm than good in the end. Meanwhile they make their mooney by
doing things with 
> hardware player companies. I still think h264 will squeeze them here
over time, but as 
> DivX playback support has recently been added to some games
consoles, the brand is still 
> alive enough for companies to fork out for certification, and so
people will still create & 
> convert to that format, and it has a future. Plus if they are
intending to do a new DivX that 
> uses stuff from h264, they could survive longterm. 
> 
> I wonder if DivX will look to other areas to nurture legitimate uses
for DivX as a format 
> that people obtain video in, or whether they will just give up on
that side of things. Before 
> stage6 existed I used to say they needed more legit divx content,
now we've come full 
> circle and they dont want to pay the large costs to do that anymore,
and I dont know how 
> easy it will be for them to get many 3rd parties to use their
format. Still despite all my 
> years of hope regarding h264, theres a long way to go for
simplifying the computer video 
> format muddle, not so clearcut as the recently concluded blueray vs
hd-dvd battle. I can 
> make it sound like h264 is god by mentioning its use in both those
formats, but from what 
> I understand most HD titles on disc have used VC1 the Microsoft
codec, rather than h264, 
> although both are supported by blueray & hddvd players.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunate.
> > 
> > Eggs in Baskets, people.  Have redundant copies of your material on
> > the net or at least on local storage.
> > 
> > Bill
> > http://BillCammack.com
> > 
&

[videoblogging] Re: Mac, Final Cut and AVIs

[Bill Cammack]

Sounds like you upgraded your Quicktime.  I can run AVIs on my old OS,
but they "explode" finder in Tiger and the latest upgrade of Quicktime
I've bothered to do.

Do what Steve says, or do the same thing using mpeg streamclip.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Garfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I just open the .avi files in QuickTime and export as full DV, then
bring into FCP to edit.  
> Solves all the rendering and timeline issues.
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "miglsd27"  wrote:
> >
> > I´m having a problem with my photocameras AVI files. I´ve been
using them for a long 
> time 
> > with my Mac and Final Cut, but something happened and Final Cut
and the Finder explode 
> > everytime I try to use a AVI movie. Oddly mpeg stream clip does
not. Anyone had a similar 
> > problem? Any ideas?
> > 
> > Miguel.
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: camera advice

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "josheklow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm shopping around for a new camera for vlogging as well as other
video projects. I've been 
> looking at the Canon XL2, the Panasonic DVX100B, and the Sony PD170.
I'm going to be 
> trying these cameras out before I make any purchase, but I figured
that this group would be a 
> good source of advice on these or other cameras.
>
Shot on DVX100:


or

http://tinyurl.com/2hryuf

I was impressed with the video quality, which is was even sweeter
before compressing that video down to 480x270.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: wow, totally missed this

[Bill Cammack]

I missed this, too!  Congrats! :D

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> congrats!
> MeFeedia Raises $250k For Video
>
Search
> *By Joseph Weisenthal * -
Wed 19
> Mar 2008 07:08 PM PST
> 
> MeFeedia , a provider of video search and
> discovery, has raised a $250k angel round from unidentified
investors. The
> funding announcement coincides with the official launch of its service,
> which spans 15,000 video sites, including platforms like YouTube, as
well as
> the video sites run by the TV networks. In addition to the pure search
> aspect, Burbank, CA-based MeFeedia offers social networking tools like
> peer-based discovery. CEO Frank Sinton was previously at Sony (NYSE:
> SNE)
> Pictures Entertainment. Other companies exploring similar things
include VodPod
> and Mesmo .
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://geekentertainment.tv
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: NNN gets a second round of funding

[Bill Cammack]

Congrats to Tim @ the crew. :D

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-online-video-service-nextnew-receives-15-million-funding-goldman-veloci/
> 
> "Online video production and distribution service NextNew Networks has
> > received $15 million in a new second round of funding...the round
was co-led
> > by Goldman Sachs and Velocity Interactive Group (Jon Miller is
already on
> > the board from before). Previous investors Spark Capital has
invested again
> > as has Saban Media Group and Bob Pittman. "
> >
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: A Paid Video Job for Videobloggers

[Bill Cammack]

Sweet.  Good luck with the project. :D


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Schoneveld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Well, I was talking about creating something new... we're pitching
some potential clients 
> on the power of videoblogging to enhance their corporate sites and
draw traffic to their 
> brands.  We've got a few projects cooking and needed some good
examples to enhance 
> our sales materials.
> 
> Fortunately, I got bombarded with email of interested folks!  :)  So
we got the jobs covered.  
> 
> I'll definitely alert this community when we launch big assignments
as an open casting call 
> which will surely come soon.  Look for them soon!
> 
> Best,
> Mark*
> 
> xlntads.com
> 
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
wrote:
> >
> > Hey Mark. :)
> > 
> > I don't get what you mean by "make us" pilot/audition videos.
> > 
> > You mean edit the footage you already shot, or make videos from
> > scratch?  Reply here or email me.
> > 
> > Bill
> > http://BillCammack.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Schoneveld"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey gang,
> > > 
> > > I'm looking for a few good people to help me out with a couple
> > videos I'm putting together 
> > > for some potential clients.  We're about to close some deals with a
> > few big companies who 
> > > are going to host branded video blogs on their websites (that we're
> > going to make for 
> > > them).  I want to pay some folks to make us 'pilot/audition' videos,
> > no more than two 
> > > minutes long.  Pick one of the following topics that interest you:
> > > 
> > > * Golf
> > > * Dating
> > > * Road Tripping
> > > 
> > > If you've got some time on your hands this week (we need `em quick!)
> > and would like to 
> > > earn some extra cash, email me (mark at xlntads dot com) and I'll
> > give the scoop. Put 
> > > `XLNTads VIDEO JOB` in the Subject: line of your email, and send me
> > some links to your 
> > > work.
> > > 
> > > Also, if you're interested in making commercials, that's what we're
> > all about!  Come check 
> > > out what we've got going on at XLNTads.com.  Right now, for example,
> > we're running one 
> > > campaign for Bud Light.  Sign up to get involved.
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mark*
> > > 
> > > xlntads.com
> > > thepovertyjetset.com
> > >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: A Paid Video Job for Videobloggers

[Bill Cammack]

Hey Mark. :)

I don't get what you mean by "make us" pilot/audition videos.

You mean edit the footage you already shot, or make videos from
scratch?  Reply here or email me.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Schoneveld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Hey gang,
> 
> I'm looking for a few good people to help me out with a couple
videos I'm putting together 
> for some potential clients.  We're about to close some deals with a
few big companies who 
> are going to host branded video blogs on their websites (that we're
going to make for 
> them).  I want to pay some folks to make us 'pilot/audition' videos,
no more than two 
> minutes long.  Pick one of the following topics that interest you:
> 
> * Golf
> * Dating
> * Road Tripping
> 
> If you've got some time on your hands this week (we need `em quick!)
and would like to 
> earn some extra cash, email me (mark at xlntads dot com) and I'll
give the scoop. Put 
> `XLNTads VIDEO JOB` in the Subject: line of your email, and send me
some links to your 
> work.
> 
> Also, if you're interested in making commercials, that's what we're
all about!  Come check 
> out what we've got going on at XLNTads.com.  Right now, for example,
we're running one 
> campaign for Bud Light.  Sign up to get involved.
> 
> Thanks!
> Mark*
> 
> xlntads.com
> thepovertyjetset.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Professional Online Video Analysis

[Bill Cammack]

ay that YOU put that video
out there, and it's going to be YOUR reputation on the line.

> The reason I ask is that there are many opinions coming from people  
> claiming to be professionals that deny color correction took place.

Again, I'm going to make a video about it, but I'm not saying they
used a color correction program.  It takes about a second and a half
to make Obama look darker.  What I'm saying is that in the world of
professional video, there's always SOMEBODY who has the critical eye
and is responsible for signing off on a video so that it goes out to
the public.  Whether that's Hillary or one of her aides or someone
they hired from a production company or someone that offered to do
their videos for free to get their foot in the door or an intern that
had a youtube account and was selected to make videos solely because
of that is unknown at this point, at least to me.

The INTELLIGENT thing to do is spend the money to get quality people
involved so you don't have to spend the money on damage control after
being accused of using the same tactics that people have been using
for years already.

> One guy, to his credit, stated 'inconclusive' as to the color  
> correction question.

It's CONCLUSIVE that the color is incorrect. :D
It's INCONCLUSIVE how it got that way. :D

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

> Thanks for the analysis.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ron
> 
> 
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Bill Cammack wrote:
> 
> > They have the actual video embedded here:
> > <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-the-clinton.html>
> >
> > There's no way to tell whose fault that is. This is why it's
> > important to hire professional editors for video projects where your
> > ETHICS may be called into question instead of hiring interns who don't
> > know the first thing about color correction or quality control.
> >
> > I don't know who they hired to make this ad, but if they're
> > professionals, it's THE EP's FAULT (executive producer). The EP's
> > responsible for quality control. If they DIDN'T hire professionals to
> > make this ad, it's THE CAMPAIGN'S FAULT for not realizing something
> > like this could make them look bad and staying on top of the details
> > of media going out the door.
> >
> > SOMEBODY'S got to be responsible for signing off on the final version
> > of media that goes out to the public, text, video or images. Either
> > way, it's either a deliberate ploy or a mistake that shouldn't have
> > been signed off on because of the potential of it LOOKING like a
> > deliberate ploy.
> >
> > Let us also not forget that youtube compression is garbage in the
> > first place, and that the clip could have been darkened (deliberately
> > or mistakenly) at any stage of the process. We don't know how they
> > captured the footage, what they used to edit it, what filters they put
> > on it, how they applied the split-screen, how they applied the text,
> > how they compressed it, what codec they used, how they uploaded it to
> > youtube.
> >
> > Either way, SOMEBODY'S got to be in charge of looking at the final
> > product and signing off on it. That person has to know what they're
> > looking at, TECHNICALLY as well as for content and in this case for
> > political implications.
> >
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://BillCammack.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> > >
> > > What are your professional opinions on this flare up?
> > >
> > > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Professional Online Video Analysis

[Bill Cammack]

They have the actual video embedded here:
<http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-the-clinton.html>

There's no way to tell whose fault that is.  This is why it's
important to hire professional editors for video projects where your
ETHICS may be called into question instead of hiring interns who don't
know the first thing about color correction or quality control.

I don't know who they hired to make this ad, but if they're
professionals, it's THE EP's FAULT (executive producer).  The EP's
responsible for quality control.  If they DIDN'T hire professionals to
make this ad, it's THE CAMPAIGN'S FAULT for not realizing something
like this could make them look bad and staying on top of the details
of media going out the door.

SOMEBODY'S got to be responsible for signing off on the final version
of media that goes out to the public, text, video or images.  Either
way, it's either a deliberate ploy or a mistake that shouldn't have
been signed off on because of the potential of it LOOKING like a
deliberate ploy.

Let us also not forget that youtube compression is garbage in the
first place, and that the clip could have been darkened (deliberately
or mistakenly) at any stage of the process.  We don't know how they
captured the footage, what they used to edit it, what filters they put
on it, how they applied the split-screen, how they applied the text,
how they compressed it, what codec they used, how they uploaded it to
youtube.

Either way, SOMEBODY'S got to be in charge of looking at the final
product and signing off on it.  That person has to know what they're
looking at, TECHNICALLY as well as for content and in this case for
political implications.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What are your professional opinions on this flare up?
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Bid4Vid launches

[Bill Cammack]

Great Idea, JD.  Good luck with the site! :D

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I love you.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "JD Lasica"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Thought some of you would be interested in this news.
> > 
> > A small team of us from Ourmedia and Outhink have been working since
> > August on a new marketplace to get videos produced.
> > 
> > It's called Bid4Vid (at bid4vid.com), and the site officially 
> launched today.
> > 
> > The idea's real simple. Need a video produced, for your business, 
> for
> > a Web campaign, for your family, for a nonprofit? Post a video job 
> on
> > the site and then select from the best bids from producers who've
> > registered on the site (more than 800 have signed up, including a 
> few
> > folks from this list - it's free). We're looking for mass uptake, so
> > the only fee at any time is the $30 paid by a producer after he or 
> she
> > accepts a contract job.
> > 
> > You can see a list of jobs here:
> > 
> > http://bid4vid.com/search=jobs
> > 
> > and producers here:
> > 
> > http://bid4vid.com/search=producers
> > 
> > We're looking for feedback, especially for ideas on how this could
> > serve the needs of producers better, so kick the tires and let us 
> know
> > what you think.
> > 
> > jd lasica
> > jd  @  bid4vid[.]com
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Stage6 flipped

[Bill Cammack]

Unfortunate.

Eggs in Baskets, people.  Have redundant copies of your material on
the net or at least on local storage.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah from what Ive heard there is some backlash about this, far too
little notice, not very 
> reasonable, and no pathway to transfer the videos to another service.
> 
> Its a shame, DivX stuff in the browser was quite good although Ive
long been negative 
> about its chances of success compared to other formats. DivX bought
Mainconcept last 
> year, who make h264 encoder & decoder software, so I thought they
had some strategy for 
> the future to remain relevent, but if nobody is using DivX on the
web and they closed their 
> own platform then I see them slipping further into irrelevance.
> 
> There was some rumor that stage6 closed down rather than surviving
as a seperate entity, 
> because the DivX board couldnt agree ownership percentages for the
new entity. What a 
> waste!
> 
> And people on stock forums wonder why their shares dont perform too
well. Without a 
> successful strategy to keep their format relevent, I think DivX will
just be a memory within 
> 5 years.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz"
 wrote:
> >
> > I think its sad.  They have been good to people in their
community; even
> > offering random gigs along the way.
> > What I dont like is that the user only have 3 days to get their
vids off the
> > site before it shuts down.  That seems a little too quick as I imagine
> > stage6 has known that things were going to end up dark for a while
now.   It
> > just seems so abrupt.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Renat Zarbailov  wrote:
> > 
> > >   Despite the quality and speed of DIVX HD for streaming,
compared to
> > > FLV, I never trusted myself to upload any vids to Stage6.
Encoding to
> > > DIVX has always been error-prone and that was the only reason why I
> > > stayed away from it.
> > >
> > > Renat
> > >  .
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > http://hatfactory.net
> > AIM:schlomochat
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> revisiting the great apple tv debate once more..
> 
> I have spend the past few days experimenting with recompressing my  
> "35" files- tricky because they are large files with a lot of  
> movement and not a ton of light   (I know! I know!  lets not go  
> there!)... what seems to work best for me is compressing a high  
> quality .mov , importing into itunes and then recompressing again via  
> the advanced tab  (thats also the best way for me to include my  
> higher quality thumbnails) but...
> 
> itunes provides me with two options, a larger "convert for apple tv"  
> file, a smaller "convert for ipod" file if I compress all my  
> files to the larger apple tv specs... are they viewable on an ipod?   
> I would  assume the answer is of course, so what are the downsides  
> (besides download time).

AppleTV files are *NOT* viewable on an iPod.  The data rate is way too high, 
and, 
depending on how you make the AppleTV file, the frame size is too large as well.

If you want something compatible with both, you have to make a really good 
quality "for 
iPod" file, or do it the way they recommend @ http://freevlog.org .

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

> appreciate the input
> 
> Kathryn
> http://www.synchronis.tv
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> 
> > 640x360 is a good compromise resolution, not a bad balance between  
> > res, bitrate &
> > filesize, and device compatibility.
> >
> > It will be passable to many people on a larger screen via Apple TV,  
> > but your 720p version
> > should be noticably better.
> >
> > There are still some users & devices that will struggle with h264  
> > in general, but most will
> > be ok with 640xwhatever videos. 1280x720 or higher, some will  
> > struggle with cpu use,
> > and such high resolutions are likely a hinderance rather than a  
> > help to portable device
> > users.
> >
> > But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests Apple is  
> > desperate to get people
> > to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad  
> > on the Apple TV. So
> > they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down.
> >
> > Jay that Apple video loks like quicktime, at a guess they have  
> > hidden the quicktime plugin
> > controls and used javascript to make nicer looking controls.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Steve Elbows
> > \
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman"   
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the Apple TV e-mail, it looks like 640x360 is what they're
> > > > recommending for the widescreen aspect for both Apple TV and
> > > > iPods/iPhones, but... won't that look less clear than the full  
> > 720?
> > > > Or is it possible that with the right settings, 640x360 would look
> > > > passably good on the widest range of devices.
> > > > And do these settings create specific headaches for non-Apple  
> > users?
> > > > Or, at this point, can most users play with these MPEG-4 files?
> > >
> > > apple hasnt always thought about the larger web community when they
> > > come up with apple standards.
> > > its always good to be the king.
> > >
> > > I thought this was an interesting video they included in their  
> > email:
> > > what is a podcast= http://www.apple.com/itunes/tutorials/#podcasts
> > > (is this flash or a weir new QT player?)
> > >
> > > Jay
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://jaydedman.com
> > > 917 371 6790
> > > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> > > Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: YouTube Partner program explained...

[Bill Cammack]

Both of those are good articles. :)

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A rather dejected take on YouTube's Partner Program...
> >
>
http://hellyerspuppetworkshop.blogspot.com/2008/02/youtube-partner-program-explained.html
> 
> Kent has a good rundown here as well:
> http://kentnichols.com/2008/02/21/buying-the-cool/
> 
> I recently spoke to another partner with a high traffic track record and
> they said their best quarter in the program has been $500.  $500 for
three
> months and a million views.  Awesome. (gulp).
> 
> jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Ninja Girl Debut!

[Bill Cammack]

What Fun! :D

I just watched your "Gift to Children" episode. Great!

http://ninjagirl.from.tv/?p=9

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Yukako Tajima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Thank you for your feedbacks! Here is another new episode from Ninja
Girl!
> 
> http://ninjagirl.from.tv/
> 
> Kojima Yoshio is very popular here in Japan.
> He's a funny guy.
> He infects many Japanese kids and adults:)
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:02:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Ninja Girl Debut!
> 
> Oh, Tajee!
> 
> Well done. You're adorable.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Richard H. Hall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] l.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Tajee ... very entertaining ... looking for more ... Richard
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Yukako Tajima 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Ninja Girl, our new show has just been released today!
> > > http://ninjagirl. from.tv/
> > >
> > > We just did videoblogging event in Tokyo, Japan.
> > > It was very exciting!
> > > (here is one of the articles)
> > > http://search. japantimes. co.jp/cgi- bin/nc20080206a1 .html
> > >
> > > We felt like starting something that we can connect to the world,
> > > and that is why we have started this show!
> > > Hope you will like it.
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > Tajee
> > >
> > > P.S.
> > >
> > > We also have videoblogging community in Japan!
> > > Join us if you are interested!
> > > videoblogjapan@ googlegroups. com 
> > >
> > >  _ _ _ _ _ _
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > > http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard
> > http://richardhhall .org
> > Shows
> > http://richardshow. org
> > http://inspiredheal ing.tv
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - by whatever media necessary
> http://feeds. feedburner. com/diaryofafaux journalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress. blogspot. com
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571. 5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: we should all enter this one

[Bill Cammack]

Sounds like an excellent motto to ME! :D


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i think its ANYTHING GOES
> 
> :)
> 
> On 2/19/08, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What type of works are they looking for?
> >
> > Only artsy type stuff?  Or are they accepting the type of things that
> > "normal" people would watch.
> >
> >
> > See ya
> >
> > --
> > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> > http://ChangeLog.ca/
> >
> > Motorsport Videos
> > http://TireBiterZ.com/
> >
> > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/
> >
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2008 4:28 PM, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ALICE'S 3-MINUTE INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL
> > > Alice's 3-Minute Independent Film Festival announces its CALL FOR
> > ENTRIES
> > > Deadline for submissions is March 24, 2008  5PM.  Entry is FREE
> > > The 3-Minute Film Festival and Awards ceremony will be held
April 11th
> > at
> > > Bimbo's 365 Club, San Francisco. With $16,000 in cash and
prizes, radio
> > > exposure and more, Alice's film festival offers filmmakers a unique
> > > opportunity to showcase their short cinematic masterpieces in
front of a
> > > live audience.  This year, Alice's 3-Minutes film festival is
honored to
> > > have judges from Pixar Animation Studios, Dreamworks, Lucasfilm,
and the
> > > SF
> > > Film Society.  Accepting 2–5 minute films in four categories:
> > > Drama/Documentary, Comedy, Animation and Original Music
> > Video.  Submission
> > > must be sent in DVD format to Alice Radio 865 Battery Street, San
> > > Francisco,
> > > CA 94111.  Official entry forms and film festival details at
> > > www.radioalice.com.
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://geekentertainment.tv
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://geekentertainment.tv
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Live Video Platforms - Feature Comparison

[Bill Cammack]

Nice round-up, Kfir.  I replied on your site. :)



Bill
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "kfirpravda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello all, 
> I've done some feature comparison on live video platfroms -
including Yahoo!Live, BlogTV, 
> ustream, and mogulus:
>
http://pravdam.com/2008/02/12/live-broadcasting-feature-wars-report-from-the-
> tranches/
> 
> Enjoy, would love to hear your comments
>

[videoblogging] Asynchronous Video Threading

[Bill Cammack]

Dunno how relevant seesmic is to videoblogging, but here's my
assessment of the current status of the application's threading setup:

http://fastcompany.com/blog-post/asynchronous-video-threading

or

http://tinyurl.com/33z6gd


Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Save Seesmic videos to your home computer

[Bill Cammack]

I'll check them out, Mike.  I know Phil and Kosso are doing
progressive work.

Cheers!

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mikeysizemore"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> 
> First off let me de-lurk. I was talking to Bill just last night about
> various online communities and how I'm pretty active in the ones I
> use, but it occurred to me that there are a couple of message groups
> like this one that I lurk ferociously in. Mostly with you guys it's
> because I'm very new to everything video and don't want to muddy the
> waters with my n00b nonsense, but I do feel bad sucking up all your
> knowledge without giving anything back. Sorry.
> 
> But now I can help :) I know Seesmic pretty well. As a platform that's
> still pre alpha and built up around the community it does an awful lot
> right - there are a lot of kinks to be ironed out though. Regarding
> search and the ability to save videos you need to turn outside of the
> platform.
> 
> Bill - check out my friend Kosso's little app here:
> 
> http://imadethis.tv/seesmicsearch/
> 
> You need to log in as you would on Seesmic, but it's pretty sweet.
> Kosso is a seriously smart guy. 
> 
> Also check out Phil Campbell's Egowhore:
> 
> http://www.egowhore.com/
> 
> You can search on both, but the first link lets you download all
> Seesmic videos as flv files.
> 
> Right now on Seesmic there's no real terms of service which is
> something they need to address. The model I am told will be a Flickr
> like CC licensing scheme.
> 
> Hope some of this long ramble helps and hello to everyone on the list :)
> 
> Mike 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't aware that you could pull videos from Seesmic and save them
> > on your computer.
> > 
> > http://www.seesmic.com/Standalone.html?video=Ls76IksNeI
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > http://peaurl.com/5h7v
> > 
> > 
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://BillCammack.com
> >
>

[videoblogging] Save Seesmic videos to your home computer

[Bill Cammack]

I wasn't aware that you could pull videos from Seesmic and save them
on your computer.

http://www.seesmic.com/Standalone.html?video=Ls76IksNeI

or

http://peaurl.com/5h7v


Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Poll results for videoblogging

[Bill Cammack]

Thanks for the post, Adam.  I'll check out those links. :)

Cheers!

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "influxxmedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill do you do a lot of studio work? If so you might be interested
in the Red Rocks Micro 
> 35mm Lens adapter/focus rails and the BlackMagic Intensity card.
These items let you use 
> much better glass on the front end and capture the 1080p
uncompressed signal to FCP via 
> HDMI. For a fraction of the price of a lesser camera. Of course you
have to hack it together 
> so it doesnt look like a tidy little package. HVX has variable frame
rate too which is  real 
> nice. But worth the price?
> 
> Stu Maschwitz has been testing on his blog.
> http://prolost.blogspot.com/
> 
> http://www.redrockmicro.com/
> 
> http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
wrote:
> >
> > Didn't see this poll, but add me to "Got One!".
> > 
> > It's a great camera, especially for only $700.  Hopefully, it'll be my
> > B-camera very soon, because I'm looking forward to the manual control
> > and 720/60p of the HVX-200, but I could own A FLEET of HV20s for that
> > one camera, so that'll have to wait! :D
> > 
> > Bill Cammack
>

[videoblogging] Re: Poll results for videoblogging

[Bill Cammack]

Didn't see this poll, but add me to "Got One!".

It's a great camera, especially for only $700.  Hopefully, it'll be my
B-camera very soon, because I'm looking forward to the manual control
and 720/60p of the HVX-200, but I could own A FLEET of HV20s for that
one camera, so that'll have to wait! :D

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> 
> The following videoblogging poll is now closed.  Here are the 
> final results: 
> 
> 
> POLL QUESTION: People say when you buy a car that you suddenly
notice all the similar models on the road.  Lately it seems that lots
of folks are whipping out a Canon HV20.  How many people own Canon
HV20's or are thinking about getting one? 
> 
> CHOICES AND RESULTS
> - Got one!, 3 votes, 23.08%  
> - Thinking about it., 5 votes, 38.46%  
> - Never!, 1 votes, 7.69%  
> - Don't know., 2 votes, 15.38%  
> - WTF?, 2 votes, 15.38%  
> 
> 
> 
> For more information about this group, please visit 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging 
> 
> For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
>

[videoblogging] Re: Ninja Girl Debut!

[Bill Cammack]

Fun video, Tajee! :D

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Yukako Tajima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hi 
> 
> Ninja Girl, our new show has just been released today!
> http://ninjagirl.from.tv/
> 
> We just did videoblogging event in Tokyo, Japan.
> It was very exciting! 
> (here is one of the articles)
> http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nc20080206a1.html
> 
> We felt like starting something that we can connect to the world,
>  and that is why we have started this show!
> Hope you will like it.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Tajee
> 
> 
> P.S.
> 
> We also have videoblogging community in Japan!
> Join us if you are interested!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>  

> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: High Quality Flash

[Bill Cammack]

Me Too.  VisualHub.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Roxanne Darling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> We use Visual Hub software - it is very fast encoding and does a
darn good
> job.  It is for the mac.
> Rox
> 
> On Feb 12, 2008 10:00 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   Hi,
> > Anybody have any tips for creating high quality flash for export to
> > blip?
> >
> > I went to the learning place on blip and they said to export in
> > native resolution, but my export resolution from final cut is listed
> > at 720x480 which would be OK, but it's 16:9 footage.
> >
> > I've tried this before with ffmpegx (0.9x) and wind up with a flash
> > file that is too small for blip. I just dl the new version (0.9.y)
> > and am hoping to have more success.
> >
> > I would really like to get my video out as a high quality flash file.
> > We've got great cameras and great high motion footage.
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ron Watson
> > http://k9disc.blip.tv
> > http://k9disc.com
> > http://discdogradio.com
> > http://pawsitivevybe.com
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Roxanne Darling
> "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian
> Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more
> http://reef.beachwalks.tv
> 808-384-5554
> Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv
> Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com
> Twitter--> http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re:Release/Waivers

[Bill Cammack]

Good advice.  If you care about that type of thing, have your release
forms ready and insist that participants sign them before wasting film.

If you have to travel somewhere or set up guests in advance, do like
Eric suggests and get it to them ahead of time.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, eric gunnar rochow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> i use a form made available by the Podcast Brothers. i don't want to  
> be the starting point of some ranting screed here, but i think its  
> smart to explain to people ahead of time that you will request that  
> they sign one. i find it helpful to email it to them a few days  
> before a shoot.
> 
> the Podcast Brothers have a podcaster template library that is  
> useful:  http://www.newmediaexpo.com/audio.htm
> 
> eric.
> 
> www.realworldgreen.com   www.gardenfork.tv
>

[videoblogging] Re: Interesting video interview about the future of online video advertising

[Bill Cammack]

While I respect what he's saying, because he's the one with the
company that deals with the business end of making money off of people
that make videos, I don't think "lack of content" is the problem here.

The problem *now* is what I've BEEN saying the problem is, which is
that  without a way to figure out whether suburban males with lawns
that are likely to buy a lawnmower are tuning in to your show, you
can't sell advertising to lawnmower manufacturers.

To say that there isn't enough content for companies to advertise on
doesn't take into account that there's tons of content that NOBODY
wants to advertise on because of lack of perceived ROI.

That's what's so funny about this video "boom".  People are rushing to
make a site where people are going to get on the bandwagon and upload
UGC and they think they're going to make all this money from it, when
in reality, they don't know JACK about video, they don't know JACK
about building, growing and maintaining an audience, they don't know
JACK about creating, advertising or moderating a social site...  All
they know is that "there's gold in them thar hills"! :D

Get them a pan.

There's CONTENT being made every single day, just on youtube alone. 
The point is that none of it's monetizable because you can't tell
who's clicking on it, and unless you're willing to do some form of
shotgun advertising where you know a show gets 200,000 views per week
and you're willing to take a chance on them, it's not CONTENT you
want, but GOOD content, NICHE content and content you're likely to see
ROI from.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com





--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Renat Zarbailov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Here is Hilmi Ozguc (of Maven Networks) talking about the future of
> video advertising.
> 
> http://wbztv.com/consumer/technology/MITX.Social.Media.2.584567.html
> 
> Enjoy!
>

[videoblogging] Re: How Long Should a Web "season" Be?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How long do you want it to be? Do you want to have one at all?
> 
> 1. The ability to do what you want without fitting into the kind of
> structures that limit, say, work for television is one of the very
> reasons to use the web as a venue in the first place. Why seasons to
> begin with?
> 
> 2. Seasons, though, can be a convenient marking point, like chapters,
> like volumes, like any other temporal punctuation. And they provide
> you with a nice break between sets of work in a project.
> 
> 3. Every piece or series or anything has its own correct length,
> number of episodes, etc. It's whatever value results in the most
> powerful communication of its subject.

Agreed, especially on point #3.

I break things into seasons because of different years and different
concepts.  I started in 2006, so 2008 starts season 3 for me... except
I've posted around 300 videos to the net in that time.  So... My
"seasons" aren't a particular number of shows long.

As far as some regular internet show, it's going to depend on whether
you can maintain your viewership by not posting videos.  Some shows
are dependent upon their viewers EXPECTING a show once a week, and a
few missed weeks, and that show's down the tubes.  Other shows have
followings that are willing to receive videos whenever they can get them.
 
> Time slots and series packaging are part of what harms the quality of
> what's on tv. It's the reason we have to suffer through 58 minute
> documentaries on PBS that should be either 47 minutes, 105 minutes, or
> 52 minutes, or whatever. "Feature length" is part of what encourages
> filmmakers to fall back on the same limited variations of Freytag's
> pyramid to structure their narratives. Features are this long, plays
> have one three or five acts, the opening act should play for 35
> minutes... how can anyone know ahead of time the amount of time that's
> actually needed? It's like asking painters to leave out the color red,
> because it will be supplied in the needed saturation and tint by the
> network later on. Time is the primary element of film, video and
> sound. So take it back.

This is another good point.  Internet shows are so short that you
don't really give people enough information to last them very long. 
For instance, if you watch a "season" of "The Wire", there's a ton of
stuff to talk about after the season's over.  You might even watch the
re-runs or get the series on DVD and watch it again.  With internet
shows being as short as they are, you end up constantly handing out
tidbits to your viewership.  Something like that isn't going to
support, say a 20-episode season of weekly videos and then another 30
weeks with zero fresh output.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com


> On the other hand limitations are liberating.
> 
> Just opinions from a ranting editor during a render of someone
else's video,
> 
> Brook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/9/08, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know if everyone saw this on NewTeeVee...
> >
> > http://newteevee.com/2008/02/08/how-long-should-a-web-season-be/
> >
> >  I thought it was a really interesting article.
> >
> >  How long should a "season" be for a video blog and Internet TV show?
> >
> >  Does the concept of a "season" even make sense for every type of
vlog out
> > there?
> >
> >  --
> >  Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> >  http://ChangeLog.ca/
> >
> >  Motorsport Videos
> >  http://TireBiterZ.com/
> >
> >  Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> ___
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
> studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>

[videoblogging] Re: ripping video from the web

[Bill Cammack]

Great tip, Brook! :D

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. Install perian - it's an extension to quicktime. www.perian.com.
> This lets you open .flv files directly.
> 2. Use safari. For most sites without downloadable video, you'll be
> able to find the video file in the activity window, but it takes a
> little practice. Look for "flv" or for files with sizes in mb instead
> of kb. Click on the file and it will download.
> 3. Sometimes you have to rename the downloaded file, if it's flash,
> with an flv extension (esp. if its one that downloads a file an names
> it "get_video")
> 4. You can drag the file to quicktime to open it.
> 5. I prefer mpeg streamclip to quicktime for conversion to dv or
> whatever format you'll be editing in. Available free at
> www.squared5.com (and you HAVE to use the www for some reason). With
> either, be sure you export to quicktime movie using the DV codec, NOT
> to a DV Stream (assuming you're going to DV).
> 6. If you're staying at a small file size like 320x240, photojpeg at
> 85% or higher is a good alternatitve to DV as an editing codec.
> 
> Brook
> 
> 
> On 2/9/08, Kathryn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi guys...
> >
> >  looking for a free, mac compatible program that will let me rip
> >  videos from the web and re-edit them... i promise I am not doing
> >  anything dishonest, immoral, disrespectful or divisive!!!
> >
> >  thanks!
> >
> >  Kathryn
> >
> >  Kathryn Jones
> >  http://www.synchronis.tv
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> ___
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
> studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
>

[videoblogging] Re: preroll time?

[Bill Cammack]

Yes.  I should have mentioned that those were my personal preferences
as far as watching ads on shows.  I don't buy or sell ads and have
nothing to do with that industry.

Some sites actually throw 30 second ads up before the video plays, as
if you're about to watch an entire 30-minute television show.  Some
sites also don't have the ads burned into the video, meaning that you
have to let the ad play until the end with no fast-forward control
before it re-directs you to the URL of the video you wanted to see in
the first place.

Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Zachary Braiker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Standard time for pre-roll is :10 or :15 seconds.
> We buy media for clients, and I placed several :15 ads this month.
> Best,
> Zachary
> 
> On Feb 8, 2008 2:46 AM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   Pre-roll? Preferably 3-5 seconds. First Position? 5-10 seconds. I
> > really don't enjoy watching 15 seconds of show and then 15 seconds of
> > commercial.
> >
> > Depending on how long your show is, you can get away with another 15
> > second spot in the middle or near the end, but those are less coveted
> > by advertisers, for obvious reasons of people not watching the show
> > that long and never seeing the commercial.
> >
> > I also think that the more integrated the ad is with the show, the
> > better. Have your on-air talent do the voiceover or the actual spot.
> >
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://BillCammack.com <http://billcammack.com/>
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
,
> > "Jan McLaughlin"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been watching all the networks web shows on and off from the
> > beginning.
> > >
> > > The least intrusive of them is :05
> > >
> > > The longest, :15
> > >
> > > All the mid-roll ads are :30
> > >
> > > Jn
> > >
> > > On Feb 7, 2008 6:09 PM, Irina  wrote:
> > >
> > > > yeah, anything longer than 5 seconds gets skipped.
> > > >
> > > > thats from a much more intensive study from france.
> > > >
> > > > cuz you know anything from france is intense :)
> > > >
> > > > seriously tho, 5 seconds is long enuf for impact but not long
enuf to
> > > > annoy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >  > > On Feb 7, 2008 10:47 AM, Kathryn Jones  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > HI Jim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Believe it or not research has shown that the most effective
> > pre-roll
> > > > > add is the thirty second pre-roll, http://tinyurl.com/289a95
However
> > > > > research has also show that uses skip videos with pre-rolls,
http://
> > > > > tinyurl.com/24hay9
> > > > >
> > > > > I used a ten-second pre-roll against my best judgement (client
> > > > > insisted upon it), but my advice to you if you must insert a
> > pre-roll
> > > > > is to keep it as short as possible and hope its over before
the user
> > > > > has a chance to click away and then follow up with companion
> > links or
> > > > > a really great mid or post-roll, or even better, convince
the client
> > > > > to let you incorporate their product directly into the content.
> > > > >
> > > > > kathryn
> > > > > http://www.synchronis.tv
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Jim Kukral wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know what the standard time is for a preroll ad? I
> > know
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > aren't really any standards yet for online video. Just
looking for
> > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > and opinions. 5 seconds?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Kukral
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check out my video show at www.jimkukral.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Faux Press - better than real
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > > aim=janofsound
> > > air=862.571.5334
> > > skype=janmclaughlin
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: preroll time?

[Bill Cammack]

Pre-roll?  Preferably 3-5 seconds.  First Position? 5-10 seconds.  I
really don't enjoy watching 15 seconds of show and then 15 seconds of
commercial.

Depending on how long your show is, you can get away with another 15
second spot in the middle or near the end, but those are less coveted
by advertisers, for obvious reasons of people not watching the show
that long and never seeing the commercial.

I also think that the more integrated the ad is with the show, the
better.  Have your on-air talent do the voiceover or the actual spot.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been watching all the networks web shows on and off from the
beginning.
> 
> The least intrusive of them is :05
> 
> The longest, :15
> 
> All the mid-roll ads are :30
> 
> Jn
> 
> On Feb 7, 2008 6:09 PM, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > yeah, anything longer than 5 seconds gets skipped.
> >
> > thats from a much more intensive study from france.
> >
> > cuz you know anything from france is intense :)
> >
> > seriously tho, 5 seconds is long enuf for impact but not long enuf to
> > annoy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2008 10:47 AM, Kathryn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >   HI Jim,
> > >
> > > Believe it or not research has shown that the most effective
pre-roll
> > > add is the thirty second pre-roll, http://tinyurl.com/289a95 However
> > > research has also show that uses skip videos with pre-rolls, http://
> > > tinyurl.com/24hay9
> > >
> > > I used a ten-second pre-roll against my best judgement (client
> > > insisted upon it), but my advice to you if you must insert a
pre-roll
> > > is to keep it as short as possible and hope its over before the user
> > > has a chance to click away and then follow up with companion
links or
> > > a really great mid or post-roll, or even better, convince the client
> > > to let you incorporate their product directly into the content.
> > >
> > > kathryn
> > > http://www.synchronis.tv
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Jim Kukral wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know what the standard time is for a preroll ad? I
know
> > > > there
> > > > aren't really any standards yet for online video. Just looking for
> > > > feedback
> > > > and opinions. 5 seconds?
> > > >
> > > > Jim Kukral
> > > >
> > > > Check out my video show at www.jimkukral.com.
> > > >
> > > > [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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Wanna Buy Revver? AND Whose got File Backups??

[Bill Cammack]

This is one of the reasons that I ended up posting my videos in my
four blip "shows".  With all these "startups", many of them are bound
to fold.  This is especially true for the 'gimmicky' sites that draw
users for some particular feature as opposed to a solid business plan
and hard-working, diligent people that are determined to make their
company a success.

Just last night, I was hanging out with Rudy & Grace & MissBHavens &
Bre etc etc etc and Jared Klett (http://blip.tv) was there as well. 
Sometime around or after midnight, Jared produces an actual hard drive
from his coat pocket and announces his departure to return TO WORK! :O
 Last year, I was hanging out late night with Mike Hudack when he
fielded a call about something that needed to be changed at blip, and
right there on the spot, he started making moves to handle the business.

Jonny Goldstein was doing his show on Operator11, when they suddenly
"went down" for like two weeks straight! :O  That meant he had to do
his live show on blogtv, so now he has archives of his show on two
different live services. :/

The key, like Rox said, is to have your own copies of your shows... in
all of your formats, unfortunately.  If some site you post to goes
down, re-upload to your new home.  Unfortunately, that destroys all
your links to the videos in your blog, and you have to hire someone to
go back through and re-link everything to the new videos.

Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Roxanne Darling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> So time to think about backup plans. I for one am ready to pay extra for
> file back up services.  I am not on Revver, but I am on blip, and will
> follow up with Mike if he doesn't chime in on this thread.
> We backup all our original digital media, and have backup in place
on the
> servers we manage for the first 350+ episodes.  Since then, we have
hosted
> at blip, and I am not aware of backup service there.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> Rox
> 
> 
> On Feb 6, 2008 12:47 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >   This seems pertinent to the conversation we were having in the
> > "TrafficGeyser.com ?" thread...
> >
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/68599
> >
> > --
> > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> > http://ChangeLog.ca/
> >
> > Motorsport Videos
> > http://TireBiterZ.com/
> >
> > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
> >
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2008 1:55 PM, Tim Street <[EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You know... there might be someone who for say tax purposes needs to
> > > spend $500K to get $1 Million in debt.
> > >
> > > I'm just hoping they show up soon. ;)
> > >
> > > Tim Street
> > > Creator/Executive Producer
> > > French Maid TV
> > > Subscribe for FREE @
> > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > > MyBlog
> > > http://1timstreet.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2008, at 1:51 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Curious what people on the list think about this:
> > > > <http://mashable.com/2008/02/06/revver-for-sale/>
> > > >
> > > > I'm especially talking to people like Tim Street, who has always
> > > > done well
> > > > with Revver's service-- how do you supplement the income that may
> > > > disappear?
> > > > I know you keep abreast of all the analogous services; but what
> > > > happens to
> > > > your audience when these folks leave?
> > > >
> > > > Who else around here is a Revver PowerUser?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > > > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > > > http://hatfactory.net
> > > > AIM:schlomochat
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Roxanne Darling
> "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian
> Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more
> http://reef.beachwalks.tv
> 808-384-5554
> Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv
> Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com
> Twitter--> http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Does the file size of video matter anymore?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "influxxmedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still keep my video at 320x240. Unless there is a really good
reason, I'm doing some real 
> high art lets say (which I'm not), there is no reason to waste that
much bandwidth. The 
> bandwidth is not free and it is not limitless. Someone somewhere has
to pay for it, and I dont 
> see the point of wasting it on my ugly mug talking a lot of bullshit.
> 
> Any video I visit on the web better be really compelling for me to
stick with it at hi res, 
> otherwise I just close the window. Progressive download helps here
(FastStart-Compresssed 
> Headers) so the file can play while it keeps downloading in the
background.
> 
> Codecs have gotten much more efficient so it has been tempting to
update my specs, and I've 
> seen some lovely looking work coming out of the members of this
group, especially stuff shot 
> on HD. My little Flip recorder looks like poop anyhow so bigger
sizes are necessary. Maybe 
> when I get an HV20 or similar will I change my specs and workflow.
> 
> Good question.

I have an HV20, and it's pretty much overkill for internet
productions.  The good thing about it is that recording in 1080/60i,
it's easy to green/bluescreen and do smooth slow motion effects.

However, nobody's SERVING 1080i.  They're all serving 720p.  AppleTV
serves 960x540x30fps or 1280x720x24fps.  You always end up
down-converting, and the render times are outlandish, especially if
you do blue/greenscreening.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Does the file size of video matter anymore?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes,decent source footage is vital, but its easy to throw away that
advantage with poor 
> choice of final encoding settings.

Absolutely.  People don't understand that compression is as much of an
art as filming or editing.  They also don't understand that sometimes
you have to shoot with your final output format in mind, which means
tighter shots, better light and less movement if you're compresing to
iPod size for instance.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com

> The more I watch that video, the more I see areas that would have
benefitted from a 
> higher bitrate. The nature of the footage also lends itself to
tolerating low-bitrate better, 
> theres a lot of stuff that isnt moving much. 
> 
> So unfortunately I conclude that that sample offers a better
res/bitrate balance than most 
> are likely to achieve in practice. Im still worried about te high
cpu use when playing 720p 
> footage as well. As mentioned in previous email, I am going to
experiment (again) with 
> moving the resolution down a notch to 960x540 and see what can be done.
> 
> I still have no idea when we will see h264 played using flash,
become a widely used 
> option, I guess I do expect it to happen sometime in 2008.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Rambos Locker"
 wrote:
> >
> > Steve, the quality at that size is incredible. I've played around with
> > Divx in SD footage and got my best results, but nothing like that.
> > Outputting the best quality from the Cam still seems to be the key to
> > stunning video.
> > Cheers Rambo 
> >
> >  HYPERLINK
> > "http://rambos-locker.blogspot.com"http://rambos-locker.blogspot.com 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2008 10:44 AM
> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Does the file size of video matter
anymore?
> >  
> > I have been inspired by this video:
> > 
> > HYPERLINK
> >
"http://www.flashvideofactory.com/test/DEMO720_Heima_H264_500K.html"http
> > ://www.flashvid-eofactory.-com/test/-DEMO720_Heima_-H264_500K.-html
> > 
> > So that video is 1280x720 25fps but the bitrate is only 500K :)
> > 
> > So that video which is naerly 4 minutes long, is only 15.5MB in size,
> > but 720p resolution :)
> > 
> > In not sure which encoder & settings he used. Granted it is
possible to
> > see various 
> > compression artifacts here and there, as the bitrate is much lower
than
> > would be 
> > recommended for such resolutions, but even so, Im very impressed.
Other
> > issues such as 
> > playback performance on slower machines could be an issue, but ooh
> > nonetheless :)
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Steve Elbows
> > 
> > --- In HYPERLINK
> > "mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com"videoblogging@,
> > "Michael Verdi"  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Feb 4, 2008 5:14 PM, Heath  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > But this does lead to another question, how many people are
watching
> > > > the videos "on site" and how many download and watch on their
> > > > portable? Anybody know of any studies on that?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Good question. I think the vast majority of people are probably
> > > watching things on the web. Just on my own site it probably averages
> > > out to about 7 of 10 people watching on the site. And I think I
have a
> > > pretty heavily videoblogger skewed bunch of people watching.
> > > 
> > > - Verdi
> > >
> >  
> > 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date:
> > 4/02/2008 8:42 PM
> > 
> > 
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date:
> > 4/02/2008 8:42 PM
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Does the file size of video matter anymore?

[Bill Cammack]

I don't think file *size* is as important as data rate.

Like Verdi's saying, you want people to be able to view your videos
without them constantly stopping to buffer.  The better quality you
can get at lower data rates, the more likely you are for people to
watch your show and not get frustrated and eject.  Therefore, the
*size* of the file would depend on the length of your program.

Bill
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can give you a useful answer...
> 
> In the US, at least at the moment, most people have broadband
> connections without monthly dowmload limits. So the size of the file
> is less of a concern especially if people are using aggregators like
> iTunes or Miro to download video. Where it becomes a concern is when
> they are trying to watch it on your website. Those export for IPod
> 1600kbps videos don't often play without a significant amount of
> waiting. To make up for that (and plugin uncertainty) many people
> offer a lower bit rate flash version from blip or youtube.
> 
> Outside the US many broadband connections come with a monthly download
> cap (maybe 10GB ?? I'm unsure). Anything downloaded over that limit
> incurs an extra charge. TimeWarner is now experimenting with a service
> like this in Texas.
> 
> Of course there is still a large section of the world that don't have
> broadband connections at all.
> 
> So, should you quit making big videos? Probably not. Should you give
> people options? Sure! That's reason #63 why I like vPIP - you can give
> visitors to your site a range of choices for viewing and subscribing
> to you videos.
> 
> - Verdi
> 
> On 2/4/08, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unless you only care about rich people in large urban metro areas,
then
> > yes, file sizes do matter.
> >
> > - Andreas
> >
> > Den 04.02.2008 kl. 09:44 skrev Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I was just curious what people thought about the file sizes of their
> > > video's or the video's that they subscribe too, download, etc. 
Do you
> > > look at the file size often, does it matter if it's big or not?
 by big
> > > I say over 50 mb.  I know some of the size of your video file is
> > > dependent on how long your video is, but as we as vloggers start
making
> > > longer and bigger projects, larger and larger file sizes are
going to
> > > be a natural by product right?  I mean using the Ipod settings at
> > > 640X480 in itself can still create a rather large file depending
on the
> > > length of the video.
> > >
> > > It seemed in the begining, shorter and smaller was better, but
is that
> > > changing at all?  I mean with the push towards HD, with being
able to
> > > view content on the TV, etc, it just seems like its all a part
of the
> > > evolution...or is it?
> > >
> > > I was just curious as to what you all thought.
> > >
> > > Heath
> > > personal http://batmangeek.com
> > > professional http://heathparks.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> > http://www.solitude.dk/
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>

[videoblogging] Re: QuckTime 7.4 and FCP 4.5HD Disaster

[Bill Cammack]

Thanks for the warning.  I'm using Quicktime 7.3.  I also did NOT
upgrade to Leopard.

It's important to understand that these groups don't work together. 
For instance, when they come out with a quicktime upgrade, they don't
check through every single possiblity of what could happen with Final
Cut Pro and then Color and then Motion, etc etc.

One has to weigh the pros and cons.  If a system's working fine,
there's no reason to upgrade it.  'Matter of fact, I still have final
cut 3.0 working on another computer for precisely that reason.  Once I
had the system working the way I needed it, I never upgraded the
operating system, quicktime or anything else about that particular
machine.

Good Luck.

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Stan Hirson,  Sarah Jones"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone else have trouble with the QT 7.4 update?  I made a huge
> mistake and fixed something that wasn't broken until I fixed it. 
> There are lots of messages on Apple and MacFixit about the problems it
> caused.  I should have looked first. 
> 
> Frankly, I'm amazed that Apple hasn't done anything about it.  It
> appears to be fairly widespread.  
> 
> I'm afraid that Apple service/support has deteriorated since they
> found  the route to success through the iPods.
> 
> Well, just a warning about 7.4.  I understand it crashes AE, too.
> 
> Stan Hirson
> http://hestakaup.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: YouTuber Auctions Sponsorship of Her Show on Ebay

[Bill Cammack]

Well Jill...

I have just about ZERO YouTube presence, but it might be about that
time to get something going hahaha.

"Where does Homey sign? :("

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jill H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i hope something does come out of it b/c i get just as many views
and subs
> as she does- it would be nice to have a sponsor :)
> 
> then i can pimp myself on ebay too
> 
> On Feb 1, 2008 12:21 PM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   hehe I'll just be interested to see how well it plays on
YouTube. I'm
> > not saying she's the first to do it there either, but this is the
> > first one I've been made aware of.
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
,
> > "Jan McLaughlin"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > But we all know Rocketboom and Wreck & Salvage went there first :)
> > >
> > > Dang, but we come up with some excellent ideas 'round here.
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > On Feb 1, 2008 11:33 AM, Bill Cammack  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Interesting. Reminds me of what Wreck & Salvage did, except she's
> > > > auctioning her entire "Spring Season" of "The Resident":
> > > >
> > > > Post: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCrqSOHK7Q#HuME71gz1Fo>
> > > >
> > > > Channel: <http://www.youtube.com/theresident>
> > > >
> > > > Ebay:
> > <http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320214017635>
> > > >
> > > > ... and before y'all start *crying* about disclosure, :) I
don't know
> > > > this chick hahaha :D
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > > BillCammack.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Faux Press - better than real
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > > aim=janofsound
> > > air=862.571.5334
> > > skype=janmclaughlin
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: A WordPress E-mail Plug-In

[Bill Cammack]

I'm pretty sure if you embed the blip player using "most blogs" option
from the "share" / "cut and paste" area, the player you get comes with
an option to do just that if your viewers click under the video.

That's how I would do it if I were interested in that functionality.

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "gerrytshow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone!
> 
> I hope everyone is having a Happy Friday.  I was wondering if anyone 
> knows where I could find a Wordpress Plugin or user friendly code 
> that would allow viewers of The Gerry T Show, a why to send an e-mail 
> link from their favorite episode to Friends & Family?  Like they have 
> on Blip.TV
> 
> I'm also interested in getting a plugin or code that would allow 
> viewers of the show the ability to submit their favorite episodes of 
> the Gerry T Show to social bookmarking and community sites like Digg, 
> Facebook, and a others.  
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help regarding achieving this DREAM!
> 
> 
> Gerry T
> 
> The Gerry T Show
> "Where Dating & Mating Always Come Together"
> http://TheGerryTShow.Blip.TV
> http://GerryT.com
> twitter.com/TheGerryTShow
>

[videoblogging] Re: YouTuber Auctions Sponsorship of Her Show on Ebay

[Bill Cammack]

hehe I'll just be interested to see how well it plays on YouTube. I'm
not saying she's the first to do it there either, but this is the
first one I've been made aware of.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But we all know Rocketboom and Wreck & Salvage went there first :)
> 
> Dang, but we come up with some excellent ideas 'round here.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On Feb 1, 2008 11:33 AM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Interesting.  Reminds me of what Wreck & Salvage did, except she's
> > auctioning her entire "Spring Season" of "The Resident":
> >
> > Post: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCrqSOHK7Q#HuME71gz1Fo>
> >
> > Channel: <http://www.youtube.com/theresident>
> >
> > Ebay:
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320214017635>
> >
> > ... and before y'all start *crying* about disclosure, :)  I don't know
> > this chick hahaha :D
> >
> > Bill
> > BillCammack.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] YouTuber Auctions Sponsorship of Her Show on Ebay

[Bill Cammack]

Interesting.  Reminds me of what Wreck & Salvage did, except she's
auctioning her entire "Spring Season" of "The Resident":

Post: 

Channel: 

Ebay: 

... and before y'all start *crying* about disclosure, :)  I don't know
this chick hahaha :D

Bill
BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Working with 4:3 and 16:9 in FCP

[Bill Cammack]

Here are your choices:

1) Use a 16:9 sequence and decide what portion of your 4:3 footage
you're going to show, full-screen.
2) Use a 16:9 sequence and use your whole frames of 4:3 footage with
black bars on either side.
3) Use a 4:3 sequence and decide what portion of your 16:9 footage
you're going to show, full screen.
4) Use a 4:3 sequence and use your whole frames of 16:9 footage with
black bars on the top and bottom.

Alternatively, you could do what televisions do and use a 16:9
sequence and stretch your 4:3 footage horizontally to reach the edges
of the frame.  That's what happened when you go into sports bars and
the players look "fat" on the screen.  I don't recommend that AT ALL,
but it *is* an option.

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like some advice as to how to work with 4:3 and 16:9 in the same  
> project on FCP.
> 
> All of our old stuff is 4:3 our new stuff is 16:9.
> 
> Our blip player is embedded at 16:9, and cropped real tight to keep  
> it very neat and clean looking: http://k9disc.com for an example.
> 
> So, I started a project in FCP. I changed the settings to regular  
> NTSC in Log and Capture, but did not set the project settings in the  
> A/V tab under the FCP menu.
> 
> So, my footage was 4:3 but the sequence was 16:9.
> 
> I'm waiting on an encode right now of a 16:9 aspect ratio letterboxed  
> if necessary.
> 
> I have 2 16:9 clips in the movie, our standard intro and outro.
> 
> So...
> Is it going to work?
> 
> How can I plan for this in the future. It's bound to happen again.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ron Watson
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://k9disc.com
> http://discdogradio.com
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: on FEB 2nd, the luck of seven returns to NYC!!!

[Bill Cammack]

Welcome back, dude! :D

Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "noel hidalgo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (this is just an excerpt from a mass email i sent out today... i do
> hope to see my peeps this weekend)
> 
> for the past two weeks, i've thinking and boiling things down. not
> only have i post the quintessential 100 things learned on this journey
> < http://tinyurl.com/2z45xm >; i've also distilled the seven lessons
> learned < http://tinyurl.com/28kdez >.
> 
> as today marks my 207th day around the world, in four short days i
> will stop this silly physcosis and embark on one of the most unique
> victory tours evva. instead of landing in nyc and hopping behind a bar
> (not to drown my wondering sorrows, but to make some much needed
> money) i'm going to have a little homecoming party, celebrate with old
> and new friends and repack my bags.
> 
> on the 2nd Feb @ 5pm join me in billyburg, bklyn at spuyten duveil for
> a happy hour and bar crawl. this will be an extremely special
> homecoming, so i do hope you can attend.
> 
> also note, i now have an american cellphone number just for txt msgs
> (+1.808.382.7142).
> 
> 2nd Feb @ 5pm don't be later than 5.30ish.
> spuyten duveil, 359 metropolitan ave
> L train stop Beford Ave or Lorimer St
> G train stop Metropolitian Ave
> 
> --
> join me on a trip around the world!
> http://ontheluckofseven.com
> 
> noel hidalgo
> [ skype ] nonecknoel
> [ twitter ] http://twitter.com/noneck
> [ email/jabber/aim ] noel[a]noneck.org
> http://www.dopplr.com/traveller/noneck
> http://www.couchsurfing.com/people/nonecknoel
>

[videoblogging] Re: Slow Motion Video...

[Bill Cammack]

You're welcome, Ron. :D

Sports footage always has the opportunity to be more dramatic and
impactful in slow motion, but you have to shoot it with that idea in
mind in order to get the best quality results. :)

If you end up using the footage regular speed, there's no difference,
so shooting for slow-mo only increases your options.

Cheers! :D

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just posted our weekly stuff to Semanal, fashionably late, and  
> wanted to give Bill C. a shoutout for suggesting to shoot for slow  
> motion.
> 
> It's going to make a big difference in our show.
> 
> You can see the first test of the footage over at Semanal week 5.
> 
> Thanks Bill!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ron Watson
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://k9disc.com
> http://discdogradio.com
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Bill Cammack wrote:
> 
> > I don't have an opinion on the stage stuff, but make sure you shoot
> > the dog footage as "fast" as possible, with an even faster shutter
> > speed so you can do great, smooth, slow motion video.
> >
> > Try recording in 60i with a shutter faster than 120, then slow it down
> > to either 30 or 24fps.
> >
> > --
> > Bill
> > BillCammack.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey everybody,
> > > I'm so proud of myself staying out of that market based discussion!
> > >
> > > I'd like to ask everyone here about background colors for a stage.
> > > What colors are good to shoot against?
> > >
> > > I've been working with our lighting and think it's coming along  
> > quite
> > > well, but now I'd like to get our background a bit shored up.
> > >
> > > So, does anybody have any suggestions on background colors and such?
> > >
> > > Feel free to talk about lighting as well.
> > >
> > > Here's some close up footage of some spotty walls and our new
> > > lighting : http://blip.tv/file/613081
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Ron Watson
> > >
> > > Pawsitive Vybe Canines
> > > 11659 Berrigan Ave.
> > > Cedar Springs, MI 49319
> > >
> > > Personal Contact:
> > > 616.863.DOGS
> > > k9disc@
> > >
> > > On the Web:
> > > http://pawsitivevybe.com
> > > http://k9disc.com
> > > http://k9disc.blip.tv
> > > http://discdogradio.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio

[Bill Cammack]

I don't know the answer for the PC.  For the Mac, you build out a
high-resolution format video and drag it into Compressor (or use
export using Compressor from Final Cut Pro).  From there, you drag
your presets to that video [apple tv, ipod, wmv, 3gp, ogg] and click
"submit" and it makes all the formats for you.

So, basically, any program that allows you to select multiple output
formats and run a batch process will involve "the least personal
attention".  Some hosts do conversions for you, like how blip will
make a flash version for you or Veoh will post to youtube for you (at
least it did the last time I used Veoh, ages ago).

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> By way of brief introduction, "I am a long time lurker, first time
> poster" and trying to find time for a videoblog.
> 
> I have been looking for a workflow which will allow me to move quickly
> from my HDV video (Sony FX1) from the non square format to square
> format for the web, Blip etc.
> 
> I use Vegas pro 8 for NLE and I wish to end up with video encoded to
> various web flavored formats. I realize I can convert the video in the
> editor. I'm looking to find an optimal work flow that involves the
> least personal attention after editing (while encoding) because it
> seems to be very compute intensive. A semi random search for Nirvana
> in the encoding world looks like it will be very time consuming.  I
> have high hopes of finding some sage advice here.
> 
> Bob...
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Ludington"  wrote:
> >
> > > Good arguments, however, neither 1440x1080 nor 720x480
Anamorphic are
> > > meant to be viewed (as you stated in your other post, so I'm not
> > > telling you anything new) in those dimensions in square pixels.
 Since
> > > blip delivers video to computers, which use square pixels, IMO,
> > > there's no reason they should cater to anything other than 16x9
or 4x3
> > > formats.
> > 
> > One more time, with feeling: I'm not asking them to present non square
> > pixels. I'm asking them to convert non-square pixels for the Web.
> > 
> > As you say below: "How come videos are expected to be formatted at
> > television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)?" I'm expecting them not to be and
> you're
> > telling me I shouldn't. ;)
> > 
> > And because I'm feeling snarky, from the Blip site:
> > 
> > "We're sending our top shows directly to the television set with
> Internet
> > video on demand. And that's just the start. We believe that your
> show should
> > be indistinguishable from a show on a broadcast network in terms
of how
> > people find and watch it. We're working hard to make this happen."
> > 
> > More snark quoting Blip on the issue of formats:
> > 
> > "You shouldn't have to choose between great quality Flash video and
> > compatibility with iTunes. Your videos should work everywhere, no
> question.
> > That's why blip.tv supports every video format under the sun, from
> Flash 8
> > (much higher quality than most Flash video) to Quicktime (for the
> > all-important iTunes) to DivX and 3gp (we think cell phones are
> cool, too)."
> > 
> > That sounds like a utility knife to me. ;)
> > 
> > 
> > > I think you bring up an interesting discussion.  How come videos are
> > > expected to be formatted at television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)?
> > > other question is "What is the benefit to a company to accommodate
> > > people that choose not to conform?
> > 
> > If I'm an average video guy who just wants to make video, how would
> I know
> > whether I'm conforming or not? I have a vision, my camera shoots
at this
> > resolution, I can output files in the same resolution from my video
> editor,
> > so how am I *not* conforming?
> > 
> > 
> > Jake Ludington
> > 
> > http://www.jakeludington.com
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Which video do you Embed to your site?

[Bill Cammack]

I'll check out the video.  In general, I use the blip single-episode
player to serve the video and have an mp4 enclosure in the post so it
sends an iPod-compatible format to my iTunes feed.

Under that, I'll post direct links to diferent versions...
HD/WMV/3gp...  It's kind of a mix between the styles of Steve & Zadi's
http://EpicFU.com and Bre Pettis' http://www.imakethings.com/ .

Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Clintus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was curious as to how one decides which version of their video, from
> which video host, to put on their blog/site and share with everyone? I
> posted a video asking said question and would love everyone's feedback
> on it. Thanks.
> 
> 
> Video Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield "hand held" major movie

[Bill Cammack]

I guess that's possible if the camera was in some sort of extended
play (read: lower quality) mode, since tapes are 60 minutes long to
begin with, and 40 minutes if you're recording DVcam instead of miniDV.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mcmpress" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have read that the concept of the movie's TRT is that the entire
> movie lasts 80 minutes, no longer than a tape would in the camera.
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it
> > would have had to have been tape.  That's the only way that they would
> > have had scenes from a previous recording.
> > 
> > Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened
> > because there's no "recording over" disk files.  There's deleting disk
> > files so you have more space to record.
> > 
> > Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or
> > card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of
> > the new footage would have been after it.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Amirault"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Michael Verdi"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the
device
> > > > of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't
happen
> > > > with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot
with
> > > > the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23
> > > > which is not a consumer camera.
> > > 
> > > I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was
> > a disc 
> > > based camera (either DVD or hard disk) .  What came to my minds
> eye was 
> > > something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit ..
> > *very* 
> > > rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk.  I think
> > using the 
> > > term "tape" was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and
> > does 
> > > not need any further explanation.
> > > 
> > > If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my
next 
> > > choice.
> > > 
> > > Richard Amirault
> > > Boston, MA, USA
> > > http://n1jdu.org
> > > http://bostonfandom.org
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
> > >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield "hand held" major movie

[Bill Cammack]

I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it
would have had to have been tape.  That's the only way that they would
have had scenes from a previous recording.

Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened
because there's no "recording over" disk files.  There's deleting disk
files so you have more space to record.

Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or
card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of
the new footage would have been after it.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Amirault"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Michael Verdi"
> 
> 
> > They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device
> > of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen
> > with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with
> > the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23
> > which is not a consumer camera.
> 
> I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was
a disc 
> based camera (either DVD or hard disk) .  What came to my minds eye was 
> something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit ..
*very* 
> rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk.  I think
using the 
> term "tape" was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and
does 
> not need any further explanation.
> 
> If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next 
> choice.
> 
> Richard Amirault
> Boston, MA, USA
> http://n1jdu.org
> http://bostonfandom.org
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
>

[videoblogging] Re: cool job in nyc: Etsy

[Bill Cammack]

Yeah... You guys already know the quality of Bre's work.  This thing's
gonna be big, *big*, BIG! :D

Hustle on over and throw your hat in the ring! :D

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, T.Whid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *Video Editor Plus!*
> 
> Etsy.com < http://etsy.com/>, the online marketplace for all things
> handmade,
> has an online magazine, the Storque, for which we are hiring an
experienced
> videographer/podcaster to produce, shoot, edit our online video content.
> http://www.etsy.com/storque
> 
> Full-time, permanent position, health benefits and stock options
after one
> month. Position available immediately. Must be NYC-based, & able to
work out
> 
> of Etsy Labs at 325 Gold st 6th fl, Brooklyn, NY (fun, non-corporate
> atmosphere).
> 
> JOB DESCRIPTION We are looking for a creative self-starter with a
> documentary or news background who wants to trail-blaze Etsy's
online video
> content and make it a DIY destination. We just hired videoblogging
guru Bre
> Pettis of MAKEzine's weekend projects and we're looking for a shooting
> buddy/editor to work with him.  Current programming includes producing a
> monthly newscast, series of portraits/studio tours with Etsy sellers,
> craft-oriented How-tos, and animated videos about
> Etsy.com< http://etsy.com/>site features. We would like someone who can
> seek out interesting people and
> events in the DIY world and make videos that captivate, inform and
connect
> the Etsy community.
> 
> Editor on Mac Finalcut Pro system, AfterEffects or similar graphics and
> post-production work, experience videoblogging, troubleshooting
codex and
> compressions for web, experience with HD cameras, lighting.
Experience in
> developing look and feel (branding) videos. Knowledge of animation
> techniques a plus. Sound editing and even music composition skills are
> great!  We are looking for a video/webby person!
> 
>   - Production:
>  - Shoot videos with Bre Pettis, our videoblogger host/New Media
>  guru
>  - Editing:
>  - monthly newscast
>  - how-tos
>  - site help videos
>  - Take reviews & suggestions from other admin
>   - Post-production:
>  - develop a look and feel for videos
>  - post-production color correction and graphics
>  - make musical scores
>   - Distribution:
>  - upload video content to various sites
>  - play with/encourage online video community/user-generated
>  content
>  - be involved in the forums and community section of Etsy in
>  getting the word out about Storque & Videos
> 
> At least 3 years experience with the skills listed above
> 
> CHARACTER Basically, we want a digital age Renaissance person:
> self-motivated, problem solver, Michel Gondry-esque aesthetic,
technically
> competent, hip to the blogosphere, with a great sense of humor, and the
> drive to make Etsy the premiere DIY destination on the web.
> 
> More about Etsy: http://www.etsy.com/about.php
> 
> More about the Storque:
>
http://www.etsy.com/storque/section/etsyNews/article/about-the-storque/806/
> Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and say how you heard about the job.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Color for background of 'stage'?

[Bill Cammack]

I don't have an opinion on the stage stuff, but make sure you shoot
the dog footage as "fast" as possible, with an even faster shutter
speed so you can do great, smooth, slow motion video.

Try recording in 60i with a shutter faster than 120, then slow it down
to either 30 or 24fps.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey everybody,
> I'm so proud of myself staying out of that market based discussion!
> 
> I'd like to ask everyone here about background colors for a stage.  
> What colors are good to shoot against?
> 
> I've been working with our lighting and think it's coming along quite  
> well, but now I'd like to get our background a bit shored up.
> 
> So, does anybody have any suggestions on background colors and such?
> 
> Feel free to talk about lighting as well.
> 
> Here's some close up footage of some spotty walls and our new  
> lighting : http://blip.tv/file/613081
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ron Watson
> 
> Pawsitive Vybe Canines
> 11659 Berrigan Ave.
> Cedar Springs, MI 49319
> 
> Personal Contact:
> 616.863.DOGS
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> On the Web:
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
> http://k9disc.com
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://discdogradio.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Tubemogul Inquiry

[Bill Cammack]

Hey Mark.  Thanks for the update.  That sounds great Something for
everybody. :)

--
Bill Cammack
ReelSolid.TV


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "marotblat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jill, Jay, Jim, Markus, Bill, and everyone out there,
> 
> As several people have noticed, we at TubeMogul have recently added a
> new design and a bunch of new features.  Among the new features are
> the ability to upload files >100 MB when your accounts allow, upload
> FLV files and let us transcode to the sites, see your comments across
> sites via our comment manager, submit to social bookmarking sites,
> choose your thumbnail (when the site allows), a new custom grouping
> feature that we're pretty proud of, and a few more.  These additions
> are all part of the free product.  We have no intention of getting rid
> of our free service, and hope to keep adding the features that you all
> ask for to keep making it better.
> 
> We now also have additional features as part of what we're calling our
> Premium Products, which is a subscription-based service.  This is in
> response to the organizations that use us and have been asking for
> business-level services, like multi-show management, more extensive
> data export and feeds, demographics reporting, etc.  As Markus noted,
> this has been part of our plan for some time... we have been building
> these features since last summer and have actually had paying
> customers since Sept.  
> 
> We have put in place limits to some aspects of our free service, and
> as Jim mentioned, have emailed and spoken with the 10% or so of our
> users who are near or above (or in the past have been near or above)
> these limits.  We're grandfathering in users on their producer
> tracking levels, but having a cap on the number of video deployments
> per month.  We made a mistake where some people experienced a slight
> service disruption on Thursday before receiving communication from us,
> which was unintended and we hope we've been in touch with everyone
> affected.
> 
> Since we started this company (out of Berkeley, though now located a
> few miles away in Emeryville - come stop by - we love visitors and
> actually have enough space now!), we've been focused on providing
> tools for web video creators whether they're  making a business out of
> it or not.  For the organizations that are, we're charging for our
> services.  For those that aren't, we hope our free service will help
> them accomplish whatever their goals are in the medium, and hopefully,
> motivate people to spread the good word about us (one new way is
> checking the box to add a "distributed by TubeMogul" tag in the upload
> section, and of course, your word of mouth promotion is always
> *extremely* appreciated). 
> 
> You can check out all the new features on our site
> http://www.tubemogul.com/about/features.php - if anybody has
> questions, please shoot me an email [EMAIL PROTECTED] or give us a
> call at 510.868.4860.  We're going to be launching all our new
> features the 28th.  If you've got a blog or news show and want to hear
> everything we're announcing, please get in touch!
> 
> Also, we're looking to add to our team - Engineering, Marketing, and
> Sales.  Let me know if you would be a great addition to the TubeMogul
> team!
> 
> Best,
> Mark Rotblat
> www.tubemogul.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman"  wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, rumors have been going around that they're about to go to a
> paid model.
> > >  In fact, someone I know was contacted by them yesterday saying
> he'd gone
> > >  over the submitting "new limit" and they wanted to discuss a paid
> model
> > > with him
> > >  Note: They did not delete his account. To their credit, they
> didn't charge
> > >  him either, they just said they wanted to talk about it.
> > >  Great service, and I'd still use it unless it was too expensive.
> > 
> > I think they work out of Oakland.
> > its definitely a start-up with a business plan.
> > yo should email Mark and ask him.
> > 
> > Jay
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > http://jaydedman.com
> > 917 371 6790
> > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> > Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Tubemogul Inquiry

[Bill Cammack]

I don't use Tubemogul, but a bunch of people here have mentioned that
they like it.  I haven't heard anything about them having a limit on
their uploads or having to pay for anything.

--
Bill
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "jt_hanner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Has anyone ever had to pay to use tubemogul.com or do you know if
> there is a limit per month or year on how many videos you can upload?
> 
> Thank you,
> Jill
>

[videoblogging] Re: New Video Camera Recomendations?

[Bill Cammack]

I like the Canon HV-20, except it captures to tape, and it records
1808/60i.  You can get it to record in the format of 1080/24p, except
you have to run an extra process on the footage after you capture it
to the computer for it to work properly on your timeline.

Phil Campbell is testing a Canon HG-10 HDD Recorder, and has posted
video from it here: .  There's a CNET
review here:


You might also just want to look at whatever the top-end xacti is at
this point.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Ludington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> > Has to be 720p or 1080p.
> > Has to record to hard drive or cards.  I hate tapes.
> > I'd like it to have 3 ccds but not essential.
> > Low light awesomeness would be nice.
> > Has to accept wide angle lens attachment.
> > Has to be decent at recording audio.
> > 
> > Anyone go to CES and see anything I should keep an eye out for?
> > Anyone have a favorite camera that they are loving right now?
> 
> Panasonic HDC-SD9 fits your requirements (low light awesomeness
being a bit
> subjective ;)
> 
> Also the new VIXIA camcorders from Canon are just around the corner,
> although they use CMOS instead of 3CCD configuration.
> 
> Downside - none of these ship until March.
> 
> Jake Ludington
> 
> http://www.jakeludington.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  If I'm an average video guy who just wants to make video, how
would I know
> >  whether I'm conforming or not? I have a vision, my camera shoots
at this
> >  resolution, I can output files in the same resolution from my
video editor,
> >  so how am I *not* conforming?
> 
> Im not sure if this is related, but ive had this same issue.
> (yes, ive also taken this to the blip group).
> 
> Im posting my videos in 640x480.
> Blip page: http://blip.tv/file/596840
> Permalink: http://blip.tv/file/get/Jaydedman-aStoryThatIsntYou166.mp4
> 
> But when I grab their embed code, the video is much smaller:
> http://www.momentshowing.net/2008/01/video-a-story-t.html
> 
> They told me they shrink the video in the embed code since so many
> people were embedding blip videos on pages that couldnt fit 640x480.
> The videos would overlap the sidebars making the video look bad.
> (wish they said that somewhere)
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

It's not related, but it's similar.  I have the same issue.  I made my
post width specifically large enough to contain 640wide video and I
upload (for the most part) @ 640x360 or 640x480 and when you
auto-crosspost, the thumbnail comes out smaller (480x270 or 480x360)
and I have to tweak parameters to get it to my intended size.

If you actually go to "share" and "copy & paste", you get a box where
you can tweak parameters first and then use that to paste to your blog.

Still... If someone uses the embed code from what you've posted using
the "most blogs and web sites" option, it's going to be 'small' again,
which, to me, makes sense because there's no telling where someone's
going to try to embed it, and there's always the fullscreen button if
people want to see it larger.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio

[Bill Cammack]

Good arguments, however, neither 1440x1080 nor 720x480 Anamorphic are
meant to be viewed (as you stated in your other post, so I'm not
telling you anything new) in those dimensions in square pixels.  Since
blip delivers video to computers, which use square pixels, IMO,
there's no reason they should cater to anything other than 16x9 or 4x3
formats.

Now that I think about it, I'm not aware of whether blip serves:
CCIR 601 NTSC 40:27 (720x486)
CCIR 601 NTSC Sq. 4:3 (720x540)
CCIR 601 PAL 5:4 (720x576)
CCIR 601 PAL Sq. 4:3 (768x576)
or for that matter, any of the other film formats:


So, while I agree with you that video is being *shot* at 1440x1080
(instead of 1920x1080 or 960x540) and 720x480 Anamorphic (instead of
853x480) both of those formats, for lack of better terminology on my
part, are used to *cheat* 16x9 formats.  For instance, if you open
either one (1440 or 720 Anamorphic) in Final Cut Pro, they're shown as
16x9.

Having said that, I'm not arguing *against* programs automatically
translating 1440x1080 footage into 16x9 format.  I think you have a
valid point, but it becomes the typical situation of "did you bring
enough for the entire class?" :D

I have no idea what dimensions blip's planning to support or already
does support.  I don't know how easy it is to code "if uploaded at
*these* dimensions, play back at *these*other dimensions for every
single professional and consumer format available".

I think you bring up an interesting discussion.  How come videos are
expected to be formatted at television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)?  The
other question is "What is the benefit to a company to accommodate
people that choose not to conform?

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Ludington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> > Verdi, that's my point, exactly.  My Canon HV-20 shoots 1440x1080.
> > This is why I asked Jake what he has that's going to play it back.
> > There's no reason that I can think of that blip should support those
> > frame dimensions.
> 
> I'm not asking them to support 1440x1080 at 1.33:1 on the Web, I am
asking
> why they don't convert 1440x1080 1.33:1 properly. Big difference. 
> 
> The Blip encoder (apparently) assumes the video is 4:3 or some
approximation
> of that and outputs a 4:3 file instead of respecting the aspect
ratio of the
> video. You'd have the same problem with a video shot with one of the
> standard def camcorders that records a 720x480 widescreen mode. With
> millions of devices shooting files of these dimensions, I'm not
asking for a
> fringe case exception to the rule.
> 
> > Jake, if all those media players play back your 1440x1080 file in the
> > correct dimensions (meaning that if you filmed a square, it looks like
> > a square, and not a rectangle in Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc),
> > then I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> The problem is inconsistent experience. And you make my point as to
why Blip
> (or anyone else) should do the conversion correctly. Let's say I opt to
> leave my file at 1440x1080 because I want to deliver a pixel for pixel
> consistent experience with what I shot. If I make my RSS delivered file
> 1440x1080 1.33:1 the people who download the video will get the
experience I
> intended because there media player will handle the file correctly
because
> Blip merely hosts the file. The people who watch it on the Web will
get a
> squished 4:3 experience.
> 
> > I'm not knocking your desire to have a file hosted in those
> > dimensions. :)  I'm trying to understand what the benefit is to you of
> > having a file like that hosted.
> 
> There are many potential benefits, one being more bits per pixel than
> stretching the 1440x1080 image to 1920x1080. There's a reason HDV
records to
> 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080 - at the required compression rate to
fit on
> a MiniDV tape it looks better and you get efficiencies of encoding.
> 
> HDV is not the only video medium that does this - many television
shows are
> delivered this way (although you'd likely never know it), which
doesn't make
> it right but is also an indication that I'm not simply being obtuse.
> 
> > For example, if someone posted that they were trying to get blip to
> > host 60x200 videos, I would assume they were trying to make videos
> > that fit as banner ads.
> 
> Which would be an entirely different scenario. I'm not asking for
support of
> dimensions not native to camcorders. If a camcorder shot at 60x200, then
> yes, they should support it. I have options of outputting a finished
file
> from at least a half dozen programs that all result in a 1440x1080
1.33:1
> file.
> 
> Jake Ludington
> 
> http://www.jakeludington.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio

[Bill Cammack]

Good writeup, Steve.

I still can't see the incentive for ANYONE to accommodate any old
frame size.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well its certainly true that many people are used to the video they
get from the net being 
> square pixel aspect ratio, and it may seem strange to want otherwise. 
> 
> There probably is a logic to not wanting to resize to 1920, its more
pixels so the 
> compression/quality may be less optimal than leaving it at 1440. And
the resize may not 
> be amazingly optimised quality, though the same would probably be
true for applications 
> that do resizing on the fly during playback. Whereas if some of the
audience were actually 
> going to watch the file on a screen that has rectangular pixels,
theyd be best off with the 
> 1440 version, avoiding any quality loss introducted by resizing.
> 
> Either way it doesnt surprise me much if blip and others havent
supported this, that many 
> would find it confusing, or that a few people might expect this
feature. It could be easy 
> for them to fix or not easy at all. I guess there are 2 ways for
them to fix it, either the 
> encoder needs to detect the correct aspect raio for pixels and
choose a 16:9 output 
> resolution, or the flash player itself needs to know to resize such
footage appropriately 
> during playback. Ive no idea what capabilities flash has in that regard.
> 
> If I ever got round to posting video I would probably resize up to
1920x1080 or down to 
> 1280x760 or 960x540, because the potential complications from giving
people non-
> square pixel video may outweigh the quality concerns Ive mentioned.
Not that this is really 
> true if you are using formats where the pixel aspect ratio is
properly recorded in the video 
> file and honoured by the playback software. 
> 
> Did Apple ever fix some similar issues with quicktime that could
lead to wrong aspect ratio 
> of videos converted to ipod etc formats?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
wrote:
> >
> > Verdi, that's my point, exactly.  My Canon HV-20 shoots 1440x1080. 
> > This is why I asked Jake what he has that's going to play it back. 
> > There's no reason that I can think of that blip should support those
> > frame dimensions.
> > 
> > Jake, if all those media players play back your 1440x1080 file in the
> > correct dimensions (meaning that if you filmed a square, it looks like
> > a square, and not a rectangle in Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc),
> > then I don't see what the problem is.
> > 
> > I'm not knocking your desire to have a file hosted in those
> > dimensions. :)  I'm trying to understand what the benefit is to you of
> > having a file like that hosted.
> > 
> > For example, if someone posted that they were trying to get blip to
> > host 60x200 videos, I would assume they were trying to make videos
> > that fit as banner ads.
> > 
> > --
> > Bill Cammack
> > BillCammack.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Right - was just going to say that it sounds like HDV. You have to
> > > compress that first into some sort of quicktime or wmv,
converting it
> > > to square pixels in the process so that it's one of those
resolutions
> > > that Bill said - 1280 x 720, 640 x 360, etc.
> > > - Verdi
> > > 
> > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:27 PM, Jake Ludington  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Repost your question here:
> > > >  > <http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/>
> > > >
> > > >  Will do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  > What kind of file do you have that has the dimensions of
1440x1080?
> > > >
> > > >  Every HDV camcorder on the planet records at 1440x1080. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  > 16x9 = 1920x1080 or 1280x720 or 640x360 or 480x270 or 320x180
> > > >
> > > >  16x9 also = 1440x1080 displayed with a non-square pixel aspect
> > ratio. It
> > > >  also equals the less common 1280x1080 displayed with a non-square
> > pixel
> > > >  aspect ratio. And let's not forget our dear friend 960x720. If
> > only aspect
> > > >  ratios were as simple as you describe them here. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  > What do you have that plays back 1440x1080?
> > > >
> > > >  Windows Media Player, iTunes, RealPlayer, VLC, and the list
goes on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Jake Ludington
> > > >
> > > >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > http://michaelverdi.com
> > > http://freevlog.org
> > > http://nscape.tv
> > >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio

[Bill Cammack]

Verdi, that's my point, exactly.  My Canon HV-20 shoots 1440x1080. 
This is why I asked Jake what he has that's going to play it back. 
There's no reason that I can think of that blip should support those
frame dimensions.

Jake, if all those media players play back your 1440x1080 file in the
correct dimensions (meaning that if you filmed a square, it looks like
a square, and not a rectangle in Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc),
then I don't see what the problem is.

I'm not knocking your desire to have a file hosted in those
dimensions. :)  I'm trying to understand what the benefit is to you of
having a file like that hosted.

For example, if someone posted that they were trying to get blip to
host 60x200 videos, I would assume they were trying to make videos
that fit as banner ads.

--
Bill Cammack
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Right - was just going to say that it sounds like HDV. You have to
> compress that first into some sort of quicktime or wmv, converting it
> to square pixels in the process so that it's one of those resolutions
> that Bill said - 1280 x 720, 640 x 360, etc.
> - Verdi
> 
> On Jan 15, 2008 4:27 PM, Jake Ludington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Repost your question here:
> >  > <http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/>
> >
> >  Will do.
> >
> >
> >  > What kind of file do you have that has the dimensions of 1440x1080?
> >
> >  Every HDV camcorder on the planet records at 1440x1080. :)
> >
> >
> >  > 16x9 = 1920x1080 or 1280x720 or 640x360 or 480x270 or 320x180
> >
> >  16x9 also = 1440x1080 displayed with a non-square pixel aspect
ratio. It
> >  also equals the less common 1280x1080 displayed with a non-square
pixel
> >  aspect ratio. And let's not forget our dear friend 960x720. If
only aspect
> >  ratios were as simple as you describe them here. :)
> >
> >
> >  > What do you have that plays back 1440x1080?
> >
> >  Windows Media Player, iTunes, RealPlayer, VLC, and the list goes on.
> >
> >
> >  Jake Ludington
> >
> >  http://www.jakeludington.com
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>

[videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio

[Bill Cammack]

Repost your question here:


What kind of file do you have that has the dimensions of 1440x1080?

16x9 = 1920x1080 or 1280x720 or 640x360 or 480x270 or 320x180
4x3 = 640x480 or 320x240

What do you have that plays back 1440x1080?

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Ludington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Anybody (possibly the Blip folks on the list) know why Blip.tv doesn't
> properly convert a 1.33 aspect ratio file (1440x1080 for those keeping
> score) to a 16x9 formatted flash file? It ends up as a squished 4:3 file
> instead. 1280x720 and 1920x1080 both come out looking as expected,
but are
> 1:1 aspect ratios, which makes sense.
> 
>  
> 
> Jake Ludington
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.jakeludington.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Screencasting (was Re: SnapX and Final Cut Pro)

[Bill Cammack]

I tried out the Photo-JPEG codec.  I also tried Apple Animation and
Apple Intermediate Codec.  Those two are much 'heavier' files, but
instead of going to a final file, I'm going into Final Cut with them
in order to integrate the video into a video blog.

Does anyone have any preferences for codec use with iShowu?

Also, I'm more of a fan of full-screen screencaps where the text on
the screen is smaller as opposed to the ones that drag a highlight box
around with the cursor in order to focus on the area in question.

Opinions from anyone, pro or con?

--
Bill Cammack
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The big thing with iShowU and FCP is this:
> For the best quality use PhotoJPEG as your codec and then set up a FCP
> sequence that's the same frame size, codec and frame rate as your
settings
> in iShowU and you will only have to render transitions and second
layers,
> etc.
>  - Verdi
> 
> On 8/31/07, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Aug 31, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Richard (Show) Hall wrote:
> >
> > > I tried iShowU instead of SnapX pro for screen capture.
> > >
> > > I tried iShowU
> > >
> >
> > just noticed some screencasting tutorials here, including iShowU
> >
> > http://showmedo.com/videos/screencasting
> >
> > --
> > http://tools.ourmedia.org/blog
> > http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy
> > http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3

[Bill Cammack]

Motion has single-point motion tracking as well as 4-point motion
tracking.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/motion/

Click where it says "Match Moving and Tracking".

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all of the feedback! I guess the biggest thing I need is
> the motion tracking. I spend many many hours keyframing stuff over
> video in FCP.
> - Verdi
> 
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:27 PM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't do a lot of FX, but I use Motion for keying and compositing.
> >
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "rudy.jahchan"
> >   wrote:
> >  >
> >  > GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew
episode. And
> >  > if anything we have improved in quality.
> >  >
> >  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
> >  >  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is
> >  > > better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion
3 will
> >  > > be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already
> >  > > getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What
will I be
> >  > > missing out on if I only get Motion?
> >  > > Thanks,
> >  > > Verdi
> >  > >
> >  > > --
> >  > > http://michaelverdi.com
> >  > > http://freevlog.org
> >  > > http://nscape.tv
> >  > >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>

[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3

[Bill Cammack]

I don't do a lot of FX, but I use Motion for keying and compositing.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "rudy.jahchan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew episode. And
> if anything we have improved in quality.
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is
> > better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will
> > be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already
> > getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be
> > missing out on if I only get Motion?
> > Thanks,
> > Verdi
> > 
> > -- 
> > http://michaelverdi.com
> > http://freevlog.org
> > http://nscape.tv
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: 720 x 400

[Bill Cammack]

That would be interesting Like a way to avoid scaling from 640 or
something.  I'm not familiar with, say Tivo frams sizes enought to
know why 720x400 might be beneficial.

That might just be the case...


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "miglsd27" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>  Maybe it makes a difference if you´re plugging the iPod to a TV?
> 
>  Miguel.
> 
> > ok... So checking out the http://GeekBrief.tv formats, I became aware
> > yesterday that iPods will play 720x400 video.  I just checked this out
> > on my iPod Nano, and it works perfectly.
> > 
> > The question is if anyone sees a value for this?  Personally, my
> > column on my website accommodates video 640 pixels wide.  The iPods
> > are 640 wide or less.  If you choose "iPhone" for encoding video in
> > quicktime, it makes a 480 pixel wide file.
> > 
> > It seems to me that unless your site accommodates 720 pixel wide
> > video, you're better off using the same data rate for fewer pixels,
> > meaning hopefully more quality... Especially if you're aiming @ iTunes
> > and iPods.
> > 
> > Opinions?
> > 
> > --
> > Bill Cammack
> > BillCammack.com
> > ReelSolid.TV
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: marketing and distributing videos

[Bill Cammack]

I don't have anything to add to this thread, but wanted to say that
for people that are planning to monetize their podcasts, this is
something important to think about as far as what you're offering your
sponsors.  Are you having them pay you once to permanently be a part
of that particular show that you released, or are you having them pay
to be seen on this particular release of a video at this particular time.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Drew"  wrote:
> 
> >So if you are all cool with distributing in RSS to iTunes and Miro,
> why not distribute 
> > onto YouTube and Metacafe too? While there is so much gain to be had
> from this, what are 
> > the negatives to distributing your work on Youtube that Im missing?
> 
> Because I serve a fresh ad, and get fresh dollars every time someone
> downloads from me rather than YouTube.  With YouTube, et. al. you burn
> in an ad for the duration of that video.  That's dead money.
> 
> Your show is different since there is an inherent freshness of a daily
> show, Ninja is more evergreen.  We can and do repeat episodes and get
> positive responses.
> 
> -Kent, askaninja.com
>

[videoblogging] 720 x 400

[Bill Cammack]

ok... So checking out the http://GeekBrief.tv formats, I became aware
yesterday that iPods will play 720x400 video.  I just checked this out
on my iPod Nano, and it works perfectly.

The question is if anyone sees a value for this?  Personally, my
column on my website accommodates video 640 pixels wide.  The iPods
are 640 wide or less.  If you choose "iPhone" for encoding video in
quicktime, it makes a 480 pixel wide file.

It seems to me that unless your site accommodates 720 pixel wide
video, you're better off using the same data rate for fewer pixels,
meaning hopefully more quality... Especially if you're aiming @ iTunes
and iPods.

Opinions?

--
Bill Cammack
BillCammack.com
ReelSolid.TV

[videoblogging] Re: Why Is This Happening on Blip.TV?

[Bill Cammack]

Try asking your blip questions here:



--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "gerrytshow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just noticed recently after I upload my videos and add my tags on 
> Blip, many of my tags are either cut off or aren't displayed at all.  
> Is this normal for Blip and their tagging system?? 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Gerry T
> 
> The Gerry T Show
> "Where Dating & Mating Always Come Together"
> http://TheGerryTShow.Blip.TV
> http://GerryT.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Interactive Video

[Bill Cammack]

Cool video.  I'll check out more of the site later.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The project I was talking about is finally up -
http://whatisscioncity.com
> 
> Like I said, I'm excited about the possibilities for interaction (this
> project only makes a dent in what's possible) but it's not the easiest
> thing to make.
> 
> If you're familiar with Flash action script, here's the basic deal:
> In this example, I used the Flash video encoder to add "cue points" to
> my flv file. I named them "diggermachine", "bios" and "wristdevices"
> 
> Then when you import the flv you'll see the cue points show up under
> the parameters of the FLVPlayback component.
> 
> Then I just put this action script on the fist frame of my scene (Ep0
> is the instance name of the playback object):
> 
> // Listening for CuePoints in Ep0
> var listener:Object = new Object();
> listener.cuePoint = function(evt:Object):Void {
>   if(evt.info.name == "diggermachine") {
>   gotoAndStop("diggermachine");
>   }
>   if(evt.info.name == "bios") {
>   gotoAndStop("bios");
>   }
>   if(evt.info.name == "wristdevices") {
>   gotoAndStop("wristdevices");
>   }
> }
> Ep0.addEventListener("cuePoint", listener);
> 
> Now each time a cue point is reached the Flash movie advances to the
> frame with the corresponding label (diggermachine, bios or
> writstdevices).
> 
> 
> So what that you can make anything that's possible with Flash happen
> at any point in a video. Now if only I knew how to do more things in
> flash...
> 
> - Verdi
>

[videoblogging] On the Subject of Widescreen (was Re: Widescreen Sizing...)

[Bill Cammack]

I'll defer to what Verdi has to say about this.  My Canon is from the
double-digit series! :O hahahahaha

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You'd have to check on that ZR800 but the ZR500 actually has a 16:9
> image sensor so when it does widescreen you actually see more on the
> side instead of cropping a 4:3 image. It's one the really nice things
> about that camera (also has a mic input and A/V jack that can be used
> for headphones) besides being super cheap - $225 when I bought it 2
> years ago.
> 
> - Michael
> 
> On Jan 4, 2008 2:35 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm just wondering if shooting it non-widescreen might make the image
> >  oh-so-slightly crisper. The tradeoff would be worth it for me.
> >
> >  Chris
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
> >
> >   wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Don't know about the ZR800 but both of these where shot with
the ZR500
> >  >
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/27/partly-cloudy-lumiere-1/
> >  > http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/29/moon-lumiere-2/
> >  >
> >  > They look to me like just about any other inexpensive 1-chip DV
camera.
> >  >
> >  > - Verdi
> >  >
> >  > On Jan 4, 2008 1:15 PM, Chris  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Does anybody out there have any thoughts on the performance
of the
> >  > > Canon ZR800 when shooting in widescreen mode?
> >  > >
> >  > > I just started shooting that way, and I'm a little
underwhelmed once
> >  > > the image gets "unsquooshed". But I don't know how much I trust
> >  my own
> >  > > eyes...
> >  > >
> >  > > Chris
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > --
> >  > http://michaelverdi.com
> >  > http://freevlog.org
> >  > http://nscape.tv
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://freevlog.org
> http://nscape.tv
>

[videoblogging] On the Subject of Widescreen (was Re: Widescreen Sizing...)

[Bill Cammack]

I have an older Canon camera of that series.  Open the view-screen and
use the menu to go to recording controls.  Go to the section where you
can select 16x9 vs 4x3.  Make sure you're pointing the camera at
something where you can tell that objects are exactly at the edges of
your frame.

What you should see is that in either view, the width is exactly the
same. It's only the height that's changing.

When you bring a clip into Final Cut Pro, for instance, if you don't
check it to be "anamorphic", it will bring your clip in @ 4x3.  If you
go and click the anamorphic box, it becomes 16x9.  This is regardless
of whether you shot it 16x9 or not, meaning that it's the exact same
720x480 in either mode, but the Canon interprets the vertical distance
differently.

Speaking to your initial question, I haven't seen any difference in
"crispness" by going to either mode.  Again, I have an older version
of the same line of cameras.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Richardson -
> WhatTheCast?"  wrote:
> > On my old Sharp camera (miniDV I bought in 2002) I don't think I
would 
> > shoot widescreen, but that's because it implements it poorly. It
shoots 
> > a 4:3 image with a letterbox instead of true 16:9 :P
> 
> I'm kinda guessing that's what this Canon does, seeing how everything
> sort of gets "re-letterboxed" when uploaded to Blip.
> 
> I may ditch the widescreen anyway, since it's a pain to frame for... I
> occasionally like to get more of my actresses in frame than your
> typical head-and-shoulders shot, so when I'm shooting widescreen I'm
> left with all this extra screen real estate on the sides and nothing
> much to fill it with.
> 
> Chris
>

[videoblogging] Re: Widescreen Sizing...

[Bill Cammack]

The next size up from 480x270 is 640x360.

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Exporting out of iMovie and uploading to blip, my videos are getting  
> squished. I'm exporting with the standard 16:9 720x480 (853x480)  
> iMovie "Movie to Quicktime Movie" setting.
> 
> I've used Ryanne's 480x270 settings off of Freevlog and avoided the  
> squish, but that size winds up too pixelated at fullscreen  
> resolution. I'd like to get decent fullscreen 16:9 quality if possible.
> 
> Any suggestions from those of you using iMovie and Blip to fix this?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ron Watson
> http://k9disc.blip.tv
> http://k9disc.com
> http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
> http://pawsitivevybe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: SEMANAL

[Bill Cammack]

Very interesting ideas, Frank.  I think that would be a VAST
improvement over how comments and responses are currently handled.

--
Bill C.
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just let us know what you want, and we will accomadate.
> 
> One thought: 
> One thing that we've always imagined is to "decentralize the
> centralization". What if I was on DavidMeade.com and could see that
> Mike Moon just posted a Semanal video, clicked on that and went to
> http://vlog.mikemoon.net, etc, etc.. Then, when i commented on
> someone's vlog, this too would be something that would be syndicated
> and viewed across vlogs. Not only would this be a really cool
> decentralized tag meme, but this would also give viewers a sense of
> cohesiveness that attracts them to central sites like YouTube. IMO, it
> is the best of both worlds - i would personally be cruising across the
> "vlogosphere" for hours. :)
> 
> Regards,
> -Frank
> 
> http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'm seconding the opinion of our delegate from the grand state of
> Hawaii:
> >  for something as simple as doing a video a week, some of the
> infrastructure
> > feels slike its just going to add to my video workflow without
> enhancing my
> > videoblogging/community experience.
> > If we make the main depository Mefeedia, can't we just tag our
> videos and
> > have them show up there?  Maybe someone can make a pretty skin for
> the page
> > to make it feel special and highlight whatever its about.
> > 
> > And the thought of having actual content/meme assignments always
> leave me in
> > the dust as I just dont keep up with them.  Heck, I havent even put
> up my
> > Rampaging Santas video as I havent had time to finish it.  Maybe it
> will be
> > my Valentine vid..
> > 
> > 
> > On Jan 3, 2008 12:21 PM, Roxanne Darling  wrote:
> > 
> > >   The more I read this thread, the more I like David's Mefeedia
> solution.
> > > Ning
> > > for discussion, support, our own blogs for featured posting so to
> speak
> > > and
> > > majority of comments, and mefeedia for the channel aggregation
> aspects.
> > > It's
> > > less work, no need to set up another site, and we use the
> technology in
> > > place.
> > > To those of us who post a lot, having to manage one more place is a
> > > challenge to participation. And no reason why we can't cross post
> > > occasionally to ning or to each others' sites when an episode
> strikes our
> > > fancy. Ning could be used to stimulate memes (though I am
> meme-resistant
> > > in
> > > many instances!) and/or "let's all try this technique for next weeks
> > > contribution."
> > >
> > > Respectfully submitted from the 2 cents department,
> > >
> > > Rox
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > http://hatfactory.net
> > AIM:schlomochat
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Be prepared for disruption to your content archive this year

[Bill Cammack]

Absolutely.  We should all have at least our most prized version of
our shows on hardcopy.  Even though it's not likely that several of
these companies will fail simultaneously, It's best to have the option
of reloading your entire current catalogue over a day or two's time.

That includes the time it's going to take if, say, you save your HD
versions and have to re-compress your iPod, Quicktime, Windows Media,
3gp and OGG versions from the originals.

--
Bill C.
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When reading the predictions of the year ahead, there is a lot of
gloom about the economy in 
> general, and also specifics that various VC-funded online companies
may run out of cash this 
> year.
> 
> Some will survive, others may be bought by other companies rather
than vanish, but I 
> assume its fairly probable that we will see some close with
relatively short notice.
> 
> So this is just a quick heads up to make a few people consider their
content archive, how 
> quickly they could adjust if their host went bye-bye. This is a good
year to think about 
> backups of various kinds.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
>

[videoblogging] Re: Next New Networks passes 100 million views in 9 months

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Good for them :)
> 
> I want to hear more about NNN and others on this list, if anybody
has any insight. They 
> must have avoided controversy so far, so we havent heard about them
too much.

That's an interesting thing to think about a company... "they have
avoided controversy"! hahahaha :D

Their blog is .  Lots of the things
they've done, as well as the people they've hired are mentioned on
their blog.

I can't think of anything potentially controversial that they do,
offhand.  You pitch them a show, and if it looks good to them as far
as fitting in with their business plan, they'll pick up your show.  If
it does well, fine.  If not, it goes on hiatus.  It seems to be a
relatively simple operation.

>From what I've seen over the last year and a half on this group,
companies become controversial when they get greedy... When they're
perceived as USING people more than they're HELPING them.  In the case
of NNN, they give podcasters money for creating content, they aid with
website creation and super-distribution and they look for advertising
opportunities / sponsors for their shows.  All that stuff falls under
the "helping" category, which makes them currently "less
controversial" than others. :)

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


> I applauded them once or twice int he past for doing a few things
better than the others in 
> my opinion, such as trying to create strongly recognisable channels
and consistent 
> content, and perhaps showing some signs of knowing how to entertain
an audience rather 
> than be some weird failed web 2.0 disaster.
> 
> I dont want to hear only about the bad side of companies, after
somethings gone wrong 
> and people are expressing their dissapointment in public. We have
heard much of the 
> failings of some. We know that some show creators are looking for
the following sorts of 
> things from a partner:
> 
> Help with...
> Distribution
> Advertising
> Promotion
> Show development
> 
> 
> From whats been said so far, there are plenty of partners helping
with the first two, but 
> promotion and show development may not have received the same
emphasis. So is there 
> anybody who can report anything positive on that front, whether it
be in relation to NNN 
> or any other entity?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Rupert Howe"  wrote:
> >
> > NNN includes shows like including EpicFu/Jetset, Indy Mogul,
> > Veracifier and Josh Leo's new show Ultra Kawaii.
> > Congratulations.
> > 
> > Blog post here:
> >
http://blog.nextnewnetworks.com/index.php/2007/12/31/we-did-it-100-million-
> views-in-one-year/
> > or 
> > http://tinyurl.com/2lsqks
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: SEMANAL

[Bill Cammack]

I'm with it.

--
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sizemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Rupert (and everybody else),
> 
> I've been lurking since Irina dragged me on board at the end of the
year.
> THIS is exactly the kind of thing I want to play with. Watching the
> NaVloPoMo stuff really opened a new door for me so this is all kinds of
> exciting.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Jan 2, 2008 4:36 PM, Rupert Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >   Hey everybody
> >
> > Ze Nuno's had a great idea.
> >
> > Every week in 2008, we're posting videos. 52 videos by the end of the
> > year.
> >
> > Continuing the spirit of NaVloPoMo, but posting 52 videos over the
> > course of a whole year, instead of 30 in a month.
> >
> > Like NaVloPoMo, you can post on your blog, on Seesmic, Facebook,
> > YouTube, whatever, wherever and however. You can do anything you want.
> > As long as it moves.
> >
> > Whether you already post weekly or not, I think it'll be a great
> > challenge and network to be involved in.
> >
> > NaVloPoMo gave great inspiration, energy and exposure. And it was
FUN :)
> >
> > Join us at:
> > http://semanal.ning.com/
> >
> > We're setting up a Wordpress blog, with all participants as editors.
> > We can all post videos there, and crosspost there from the Blip Upload
> > page. It'll be easier to archive, search and browse by author, date
> > and keyword than at Ning.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Atherton
> 
> Saying the wrong thing since 1972
> 
> Writer | Tech Hipster | 9 Kinds of Wrong
> 
> http://www.sizemore.co.uk
> http://twitter.com/sizemore
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Hello Again

[Bill Cammack]

Welcome, Rudy.  I'll take a look at your podcast.  Sounds interesting! :D

--
Bill
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "rudy.jahchan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I am starting a New Year's resolution early and once again becoming an
> active member of this group. For those who don't know me, I am the
> co-creator (and now full producer) of a little show called GALACTICAST
> (http://galacticast.com), and have also created/produced A
> COMICBOOKORANGE and KITKAST with my lovely former co-star Casey
McKinnon.
> 
> I have a wee bit of experience in all of this online video stuff, and
> hope to learn more as well as giving a lot back. So if you have any
> questions, comments, critiques, fire them here, or through the many
> other ways to reach me.
> 
> Now ... who to flame first? I kid ... a little bit.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Rudy Jahchan
>

[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Frank here.  I don't believe sitcom writers sit
> down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters
> strudel.  

That's true.  Nobody said that they do. :)  Your statement assumes
direct contact between the production company and the advertisers. 
You're cutting out the middleman, the network.

The network pays the production company to make the show.  The
advertiser pays the network to advertise ON that show (or on a
particular channel or whatever).  The production team wouldn't be
interested in writing for advertisers because A) they get their money
straight from the network that picked up the show, and B) you'll
notice that there are often SEVERAL advertisers on a particular show,
AND they might switch advertisers to boot.

To give an internet example... Ze Frank's last week of "The Show" was
sponsored by scotch-maker Dewar's
http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ When he started his
show, Ze Frank didn't know A) that his show was going to be
successful, B) that anyone would want to sponsor it or C) that it
would be Dewar's, so there's no reason that he would write his show
"to control his audience into buying Dewar's".

> I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic
> shows, etc. (keyword: try)  Shows that are likely to get good
> ratings/demographics get picked up.

Agreed.  Still, the demographic you choose is going to affect your
writing.  Since you know a lot of Americans were crying about Michael
Vick killing dogs, you're *NOT* going to write an episode about
killing dogs, BECAUSE you don't want to alienate your demographic. 
You're also not going to write an episode portraying Michael Vick as a
hero, for the same reason.

> I'd be interested in hearing a
> specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples
> showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content.

I'm not sure which theory you're referring to, but the way shows get
on the air is you come up with an idea, you pitch it to a production
team, get them to make a pilot (or pay for professional shooters,
producers and editors to do it out-of-pocket yourself), shop that
pilot to networks and hope they buy it instead of stealing your idea
and making it themselves. :)  There is *NO* part in the process where
average joes have any SAY over the creation OR picking up of shows. 
Their input is useful for focus groups, but that's it.  The viewers
are studied so you don't accidentally shop a pilot about killing dogs,
but other than that, the viewers don't have JACK to do with anything
except for tuning in or not after the fact.

The show sinks or swims with the viewers, for sure, but that's because
the viewers are the product that's being sold to the advertisers. 
It's like how you can't have a supermarket without food... that would
be just a useless building to someone that's hungry. :)

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com


> People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on
> the demographics they seek.
> 
> On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
> >  misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional
TV biz:
> >
> >  1) Ratings are king.
> >  2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to
advertisers.
> >
> >  Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the
audience is
> >  going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
> >  advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
> >  what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
> >  the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide
what to
> >  watch that influences these decisions.)
> >
> >  The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
> >  audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
> >  they think there will be an audience or not.
> >
> >  Regards,
> >  -Frank
> >
> >  http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> >
> >
> >  wrote:
> >  >
> >  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> >  > >
> >  > > Frank,
> >  > >
> >  > > I think you are mixing up differe

[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was
> misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz:
> 
> 1) Ratings are king.
> 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to
advertisers.

Agreed.  Definitely.

> Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is
> going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to
> advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding
> what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of
> the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to
> watch that influences these decisions.)

Yes... and No. :D

Viewers absolutely decide with their remote controls what to watch. 
If they disappear, meaning the numbers drop off for a show that was
doing well, that show will very likely disappear as well.

My point is that the viewers have control over the DESTINY of a show,
but not the MAKING or GREEN-LIGHTING of the show.

Content creation for television is a shot in the dark.  This is why
the stars get paid 20 million dollars to be in movies... Because if
you release the exact same dumb-ass movie WITHOUT Samuel L. Jackson or
John Travolta or Tom Cruise, NOBODY will come to see it and you won't
get your money back OR make a profit, which is the whole point of
investing in films in the first place.

Television shows start with pitches.  The viewers have NOTHING to do
with that process.  Yes, once a show is slated and they start
publicizing it, the viewers can collectively agree NOT to watch it,
and the show will be doomed.  However, before that happens, you show
your pilot to what you consider to be your demographic and you ask the
focus group for feedback.  If these average joes don't like your show
and tell you why, you might have to go back to the drawing board.

That's NOT because the viewers have *power*, but like I said before...
if you don't have victims, nobody's coming to the Colosseum.  The
Romans in the stands are the advertisers, who pay money for
advertising space on the shows.

Commercials work the same way.  You do your animatics or photomatics
and then you show them to a focus group BEFORE you film an actual
commercial.  Regardless of which one was the prettiest or most complex
or whomever's pet project, the commercial that's going to get made is
the one that made the average joes REMEMBER the name of the product as
well as WHY they NEEDED that product. :)  The viewers have ZERO say in
commercial production.  That's what ad execs and art directors are for. :D

So I don't disagree with what you're saying.  We're talking about two
different phases of the process... A) Making it happen and B) Keeping
the show on the air.

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com



> The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with
> audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if
> they think there will be an audience or not.
> 
> Regards,
> -Frank
> 
> http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> > > 
> > > Frank,
> > > 
> > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate
> media a  
> > > bit here.
> > > 
> > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market
with  
> > > the one shot nature of the movies.
> > > 
> > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
> > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
> > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by
> corporations.  
> > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement
> and  
> > > such, but it's still quite true.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that
> the  
> > > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
> > > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's
> why  
> > > we have more and more commercials and less and less content.
> > 
> > I agree.  It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
> > televison model.  The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
> > video production.
> > 
> > The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get.  You
> > get that money by serving them advertisements t

[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting
> 
> Frank,
> 
> I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a  
> bit here.
> 
> There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with  
> the one shot nature of the movies.
> 
> They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales  
> models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the  
> movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations.  
> Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and  
> such, but it's still quite true.




> In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the  
> viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate  
> advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why  
> we have more and more commercials and less and less content.

I agree.  It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the
televison model.  The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards
video production.

The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get.  You
get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint
in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go
for vacation.  You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because
nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people
to sit there and watch your advertisements.

The content is made by a production team.  The production team gets
its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on.  To sell
a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also
to run by focus groups.  You play your pilot for viewers, but, again,
they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of
their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid
attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with
the show.

So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for
the show.  Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity,
lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from? 
Advertisers.  While you're pitching shows to stations, they're
"pitching" advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic
that they feel are going to tune in to your show.  Of course, there
are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production
teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the
lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting
decision-making around shows.

Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO
monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere
you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. 
Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on.  All of a
sudden, marketing teams start "selling you" the show.  You see stuff
on the internet.  They use commercial space on popular shows to
publicize the upcoming shows.  The buzz is created BY the marketing
teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on.  Even if
the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers.

So, like Jan and Ron are saying, the viewer is the huntED, not the
huntER.  While it's true that a mass exodus by viewers can make a show
go down the tubes, that's because the station won't be able to sell
advertising space on that show for more $$,$$$ than some other show,
and it would be bad business to leave it running.

The viewers pay for cable subscriptions, for instance, which is spread
out amongst ALL the channels they get and ALL the shows on all those
channels.  Advertisers pay SPECIFICALLY to advertise on a certain
channel or a certain block of shows or a certain show.  The cable
company gets the viewers' money REGARDLESS of whether they watch a
particular show, so they can't be the ones who "get what they want" in
this scenario.

The goal for the advertisers is to get their money back by having the
viewers remember their products and/or services and buy them.  So, as
far as shows, the advertisers pay to have customers (the viewers) in a
particular demographic delivered to them.  The viewers pay
subscription fees, which cover ALL of their television entertainment.
 Even if you pay for HBO, for instance, you get The Sopranos and Oz
and everything else on that network.  There is no sole subscription to
"The Sopranos", so it's not possible that the viewers have ANY say
whatsoever in how it's made, except for not showing up.

The viewers aren't the Romans in the stands, making decisions. 
They're the victims in the pit.  Run out of victims, and there's no show.

--
Bill Cammack
Ca

[videoblogging] Re: Happy New Year, great to be part of this group

[Bill Cammack]

Happy New Year, Dan! :D

Happy New Year, Everybody! :D

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "danielmcvicar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone!
> I just finished reading some of the posts of late, ranging from
passionate discussions to 
> technical advice, and I wanted to let you know that I am very happy
to be part of this group.
> 
> I want to wish everyone a happy and successful 2008.  Make video, be
happy!
> 
> Daniel
>

[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble

[Bill Cammack]

This is a tough thread to jump in on! hahaha :D

I think Gena brings up some valid and *interesting* points.

I'm not involved in any of this, but I'll put in my two cents anyway.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert I want to specifically address an issue you have brought up and
> I don't think you were being heard. 
> 
> You took a lot of heat concerning the Podtech - Censorship of Loren
> debacle. Words were said and mud was flung in all directions. Upon
> reflection, I don't think folks separated you from the company or in
> fact the actual person that generated the situation in the first place.
> 
> I think we as humans start to classify folks as "personalities" and
> not as real people. 

Again, not that this is relevant to the actual discussion, but my
entire experience of PodTech has been through this list.  I had never
heard of it other than being mentioned in relation to Irina & Eddie,
Jay & Ryanne, then eventually Jay Smooth, Bill Streeter and Loren
Feldman.  Also, at some point, the Lan Bui photo scandal.

I have to agree with what Gena's saying.  From my perspective of
reading limited mention of PodTech, I never felt that they had a
"grass roots" or "ground level" presence.  What I mean by that is that
PodTech appeared to be some "mother ship" type of thing that had
something to do with funding podcasts and the, let's say "main
characters" in "The PodTech Show" appeared/appear "larger than life".

Case in point would be "Scoble" or "The Scoble", who isn't referred to
as Robert or Bob, but either as solely his last name or "Scobleizer",
which is obviously a Terminator-esque, movie-starish nickname. 
[Disclosure: (hahaha oh brother) The first time I heard of "The
Scobleizer" was when he was interviewed by my friend Dan McVicar on
his "McVlog" http://blip.tv/file/71178 however, all I took away from
that was that this was some guy that liked to say "Power Move!". 
Having not heard of Ze Frank at that time, I had no idea what he was
talking about.]  Then, if you listen to his media (such as
http://www.podtech.net/home/3745/calacaniscast-31-beta), he's talking
about maxing out contact limits on social sites Literally, having
FOUR THOUSAND followers on Facebook, for instance.  Obviously, that's
not "normal". :D

Unfortunately, that's not only going to generate fans, but also haters
and people that are apathetic about mud-slinging towards 'stars'. 
Maybe it's not actually apathy, but more a feeling of "Well, this
guy's immensely popular inside this echo chamber, he should be used to
this and able to fend for himself perfectly well".  Especially when
you add the backing of "the mother ship", financially and as far as
prestige is concerned...  My personal feeling about the situationS
that came up with PodTech (besides it being none of my business in the
first place) was "They're playboys... they're used to taking heat...
they can handle it".

Looking at it from the perspective that Gena's presented, I agree that
my perception of Scobleizer is of "personality" and not "real person".
 MissBHavens has a fancy name, too... However, due to her style of
interacting with this group, style of video blogging and lack of
connection to a funded "mother ship", mud-slinging against her is
going to be perceived completely differently, being that she's a "real
person".

This is an interesting study in how personal bias can become ingrained
and seem perfectly normal until someone "checks you" on it.  That was
one of my points about Cheryl's thread that started all this.  I feel
like the previous lack of sponsorship of Epic-FU caused her to feel
one way about the show and that adding sponsorship went against her
own personal 'understanding' of what was going on.  Without the prior
ingrained bias, there would have been no perception of change.

> I met a very nice person (this would be you) a few
> years back. We talked as regular folks.  To be honest I tend to do
> that with everyone I met. But others treat you as "The Scoble" with
> reverence.

>
> The other side of that seems to be intense anger when there is a
> disagreement. It is not right but there ya go, it is human. Part of it
> is the celebrity thing. The other side of it is somedays we just do
> not act according to our better natures. I didn't speak up and say
> "Hey, he didn't cause this situation why are you going after him?"


I didn't do that either, for the reasons stated above.  However, I
think Gena's right again.  In cases where it can be proven that
som

[videoblogging] Are you a Tech Elitist?

[Bill Cammack]

Are you a Tech Elitist?

http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/12/are_you_a_tech_elitist.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/yth5av

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com

[videoblogging] Re: the inevitable conversation about what we're doing

[Bill Cammack]

64 comments and counting.

http://www.hummingcrow.com/2007/12/21/new-media/

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Every 6 months or so, someone starts  a conversation about what we're
> doing with videoblogging.
> how we make make a living.
> how we express ourselves.
> how we remain independent.
> how we become artists and/or businesspeople.
> 
> Cheryl started the conversation on her blog.
> She took time to write her ideas and show examples.
> http://www.hummingcrow.com/2007/12/21/new-media/
> Let's keep the conversation over there so its in one place.
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>

[videoblogging] Re: before it gets too much later....

[Bill Cammack]

Thank *YOU*, Irina for coming up with it and making it happen! :D

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i wanted to thank everyone for making the Winnies a success.even
tho the
> ping pong balls went everywhere...twice!
> 
> SPECIAL thanks to Lan, Vu and Bonny who called ME and really made
the event
> a reality, instead of just me talking smack.
> 
> Pls send me links of your Winnies videos so i can parse them out on
twitter
> like silk stockings during WW2.
> 
> Right after the Winnies, i went to nyc for WebVideoSummit and
promptly got
> the flu, so just trying to catch up now.
> 
> planning on Winnies 2008 for end of September in NYC and a new,
automated
> "here's your secret Winny" program that will be written by a sexy
geekstar.
> 
> just in case i havent hit u over the head yet, look over the pix
from the
> event on the site (http://youarethewinner.org) and of course,
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/irinaslutsky/2080712070/  -- just click
on the
> "winnies" tag for about 3,000 pix :)
> 
> -- 
> http://geekentertainment.tv
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Remain Calm

[Bill Cammack]

According to what I read, her picture was posted "All Rights
Reserved", so it was dumb of them to take it and not expect a takedown
notice.  Even if they had attributed, it wasn't posted (to my
knowledge) with a CC-Attribution license in the first place.

She claims to have contacted them and they didn't do anything about
it, so she got a lawyer, and their video went down.  They should have
replaced that one picture, re-uploaded and continued with their
success.  They didn't do that, so they caught a takedown.

Also, that's what they get for posting the video for youtube. 
Everybody knows that youtube was built on piracy, so now, they're
quick to take down videos for the slightest bullshit reason
*coughpauldatehcoughcough*

If you're going to do something like that, contact the owners of the
content for permission, only use CC licensed material or expect a
takedown if you post it on YouTube.  Period.

--
Bill Cammack
BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Many of you might already be following the overblown, but pertinent,
uproar
> over Lane Hartwell's photos being used in a "viral video".
> It's interesting because it's a argument between an independent
photographer
> and an independent band.
> its an argument over Fair Use and Creative Commons.
> 
> The band says they didnt think they had to attribute anyone since
their work
> was Fair Use.
> Lane Hartwell says she just wanted credit in the video.
> 
> Here's a good wrap up of the controversy:
>
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/12/18/analysis-on-the-lane-hartwell-bubble-controversy/
> 
> here's the take away that applies to all of us as we're learning how
to use,
> but respect, each others work.
> 
> *Attribute Obsessively*: If you use other people's content in any way,
> > attribute, attribute well and attribute graciously. It is best to
follow
> > industry standards here and to start out with the intention of
doing so
> > rather than having to go back and do it later, when it is much harder.
> > *Don't Go Public*: Nothing is ever gained by going public with a
copyright
> > dispute. When the Richter Scales mentioned it on their blog before the
> > situation was fully resolved, they helped spark the controversy
and, in a
> > way, pushed Hartwell's hand. It didn't encourage cooperation and
> > negotiation, which is what was needed.
> > *Respect Fair Use*: Fair use is such a murky area of the law that
relying
> > on it is dangerous and filing a DMCA notice against a potential
case of it
> > is equally risky. Save your DMCA notices for the real bad guys.
There are
> > plenty of plagiarists and scrapers out there.
> > *Remain Calm*: When emotions get involved, as they often do with
content
> > theft and plagiarism issues, it is easy to lose sight of how
important a
> > case really is. Some are more important than they seem, others are
less.
> > This case was the latter. It is important to focus less on
feelings and more
> > on legal issues and how a case of plagiarism can potentially help
or hurt
> > you.
> > *You Can't Silence Through Copyright*: Finally, it is important to
> > remember that, while you can use copyright law to stop true abuse
of your
> > work, using it to silence what is seen as creative expression
never works.
> > When Hartwell filed her notice against the video, it had passed
its peak. It
> > had been online for over a week and the Web had started to move
on. However,
> > with the notice filed, reuploads of the video are more popular
than ever.
> >
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Vlogger Friendly DVD Creation Software?

[Bill Cammack]

Jan's right that basically, there are a lot of people who would like
to treat a DVD lik a VHS tape... Press play, and watch the whole
thing.  Start it, stop it, start it again.

As far as indexing, you'd have to make a menu tree.  You can use DVD
Studio Pro to make them.

When the DVD is first put in, you either want to auto-start with the
full presentation, like Jan mentioned, or you want the first thing to
come up to be a menu.  Have only two selections on that first menu,
which are A) Play Video, and B) Select Chapter.

Play video plays the entire presentation and gives the option of fast
forwarding from video to video.  Select Chapter leads to another menu,
which has groups that lead to other menu pages, so that any individual
video can be selected as the starting point.

There's a lot more to the techniques behind it, but that's the basic
layout.  You can do it with DVD Studio pro, and it will be playable on
any computer or DVD player, but it takes quite a long time to do
because there are so many pointers you have to create from video to
video in playback order as well as linking the menus to other menus
and to the videos that they're pointing to.

Another option is to record all the videos into one long video and use
chapter markers out of FCP to determine where each video begins, but
you still have to make all the menu links and select the stills or
running video for the thumbnail images on the menus.

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As my folks are of similar age, I would set the thing for autoplay and
> be happy they view it once in your presence :)
> 
> That's all my elders could handle of the 50th anniversary DVD I made
> for 'em of images mostly of them made with their favorite music of all
> time.
> 
> But that's my folks. Perhaps your mileage varies.
> 
> If they seem interested in going back to particular videos again, you
> could then research the easy menu navigation you describe.
> 
> What I'm thinking is that you could break down the videos into
> categories - chapters - kids, rants, work, etc. and subchapters - and
> that would be the best you could do with current technology.
> 
> I'm liking Titanium Toast for mastering DVD's since I couldn't get the
> freebie Tiger DVD app to work (thanks to Madge@ Yeast Radio for the
> referral). It's not free, but worth it since it worked.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On Dec 15, 2007 5:47 PM, Mike Moon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My mom doesn't have highspeed internet, so I want to create a DVD of
> > all the vlogs from the past year.
> >
> > All the videos are mostly saved @ 320x240, .MP4 using h.264 600-750
> > bitrate.
> >
> > Part of the problem is, there's 230 videos. That's a lot of titles to
> > be dealt with.
> > I need a Mac DVD creator that is "vlogger friendly".
> > Ideally it should be able to navigate as Mom's in her 70's and
Dad's 85.
> > The DVD should be simple to navigate yet still move throughout the
> > library quickly.
> >
> > Any sort of Mac program that can help a guy, with limited time, come
> > out with a nice looking DVD for his mom? What are some of my choices?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > http://vlog.mikemoon.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://wburg.tv
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
>

[videoblogging] Re: New monthly video event in SF this Friday 12/14

[Bill Cammack]

That sounds great, Eddie! :D

Good luck with that!

--
Bill
BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Eddie Codel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello vlogerati,
> 
> I'm organizing a new monthly video salon series in San Francisco called
> Video Salon Redux that takes place this Friday the 14th. Yeah I
know, sorry
> for the short notice. Details here:
> 
> http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/334862/
> 
> The idea behind this is to create a space where video artists, bloggers,
> editors, animators, machinamists, serialists and anyone else can present
> their projects. This is partly modeled afer Dorkbot, a similar open
event
> focused on hardware hacking and "doing strange things with
electricity." The
> format is simple: 3 curated 15 minute presentations on a particular
theme.
> Following a break there will be an open period where anyone can come and
> show a video or a work in progress in 5 minutes.  The hope is
presenters and
> attendees will be inspired by each other to create and maybe
collaborate.
> 
> This months theme is "documenting your passion" and many of you
already know
> our presenters:
> 
> :: Doctor Popular
> http://www.doctorpopular.com/
> 
> :: Oscar Grimm, Tanja Andrews & Barb Finnin of Freshtopia.net
> http://www.freshtopia.net
> 
> :: Jay Dedman & Ryanne Hodson
> http://ryanishungry.com
> 
> So if you're in San Francisco this Friday, please come out. If not,
we'll be
> doing it again in January. If you're interested in presenting at future
> Video Salon, drop me a line.
> 
> 6:30 :: doors, shmooze, drink (cash bar)
> 7:30 :: presentations
> 8:30 :: open video: 5 minutes to show us your thing
> 
> Dimension 7 Studios
> 150 Folsom Street
> San Francisco
> 
> see you there!
> -eddie
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: What kind of Pro camera should I get?

[Bill Cammack]

Interestingly enough, I'm suddenly interested in getting a new camera!
:D  I had been gearing up to get a control surface for Final Cut's
"Color" application, but I found out that a Wacom Intuos tablet makes
me as fast as I want to be right now, so suddenly, that's a couple of
Gs I don't have to spend.

Meanwhile, I'm planning a new video project which would definitely
benefit from being shot on a nice camera.  The camera would be used
for continuous 'work', so yes, it would pay for itself pretty quickly.

I just witnessed the beauty of video from the HVX200 on Jackson West's
shoot for his NYU film. I'm very impressed with how that camera
captures mood and really kind of makes the scene what it's supposed to
be, right out of the camera.

OTOH, I've REALLY been liking http://GeekBrief.tv ever since they
switched cameras to the Canon XH-A1.  Their colors are REALLY
"punchy", and the show just has this really great look and 'feel' to
it.  That could very well be because of sweetening in post, but you
have to start with a great image with lots of definition to begin
with.  The GeekBrief setup is here =>
<http://www.geekbrief.tv/about/credits>

According to B&H, the base sticker prices on the two are:

Canon HX-A1 - $3,049
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/447098-REG/Canon_1191B001_XH_A1_3CCD_HDV_Camcorder.html>

Panasonic AG-HVX200 - $5,199
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381410-REG/Panasonic_AG_HVX200_AG_HVX200_3_CCD_HD_Format.html>

Then, with the Panasonic, you have to keep on spending for P2 cards or
a Firestore, so it's basically well over double the price of the Canon.

Of course, none of this makes any difference whatsoever if you're
'just' going to be using the video for iPod-compatible-compressed
videos.  However, with what groups like http://pandonetworks.com/ are
doing at this point, and the entry of highly-funded pro teams working
on sites like http://quarterlife.com , I don't think it's going to be
very long before HD over the net becomes pretty routine.  I think it's
better to make HD content *now* and let the delivery technology catch
up with US.

Anybody with experience with either/both of these cameras have any
opinions as far as which one they would get if the business was going
to pay for the camera anyway?

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Among the typos I left this out - despite the hubbub about the
> HVX200's 540 line resolving power, everyone I know feels it holds up
> to HDCam and even film outpt as well or better than its HDV
> equivalents. Resolution isn't everything by a long shot.
> 
> Also be warned that the fake 24P on some of the Sony cameras can NOT
> be treated as 24P in post and looks really really wonky.
> 
> And I left out my summary: assuming 24P is necessary:
> 
> Best value: Panasonic DVX100 (but doesn't do HD)
> Best HD option under 10k: Panasonic HVX-200
> Best Professional HDV for the money: Canon XH-A1
> Best Consumer HDV: Canon HV20
> Best Consumer DV: Sony's cheapos still have the picture quality edge,
> while Panasonic's have the interface/ergonomics edge.
> 
> Brook
> 
> 
> On 12/9/07, Brook Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Warning - long response.
> >
> > First - if you have a good rental house nearby I would strongly
> > consider renting for your for-hire work unitl you get a good sense of
> > what cameras you like and how their workflow works out for you. That's
> > what I'm doing right now - there's still a lot of upheaval in the low
> > to mid end HD production field and things will keep changing rapidly.
> > The fallout from the introduction of the RED camera is going to change
> > things drastically.
> >
> > That said, here's my take on the sub-10k cams I'm familiar with.
> > You'll note very little Sony or JVC mentioned - I used to favor Sony's
> > stuff, but they've fallen way behind in this field in my view. JVC
> > makes some very interesting midrange cameras, but I am leery of their
> >
> > For 24P in standard def/DV you are pretty much limited to the
> > absolutely excellent Panasonic DVX100 (or its more expensive big
> > brother, the HVX200, which also does HD once you add pricey P2 cards -
> > see below).
> >
> > For pro for-hire work I still try to avoid HDV except for projects
> > that are primarily interviews or other material that won't have a lot
> > of motion. The Canon HDV stuff does a better job than the other brands
> > on avoiding motion artifacts and blocking it seems, but you're going

[videoblogging] Re: What kind of Pro camera should I get?

[Bill Cammack]

Nice rundown.  I've seen really good results from the DVX100 and
recently from the HVX200.  If this is for a professional, and as you
mentioned, CONSTANTLY PAYING application, I would choose the HVX200,
as you'll make your money back instantly from clients that recognize
how much better your camera is over the competition.

As far as workflow, with the HVX200's P2 cards, you get to use "Log
and Transfer" instead of "Log and Capture" in Final Cut Studio 2. 
MUCH faster transfer to disk as opposed to playing real-time from
tape.  You get to see your clips before you bring them in, so you
don't even have to transfer clips that you know you're not going to
use.  Faster workflow => Getting the project out the door faster =>
More money for your time spent.

--
Bill Cammack
CammackMediaGroup.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Among the typos I left this out - despite the hubbub about the
> HVX200's 540 line resolving power, everyone I know feels it holds up
> to HDCam and even film outpt as well or better than its HDV
> equivalents. Resolution isn't everything by a long shot.
> 
> Also be warned that the fake 24P on some of the Sony cameras can NOT
> be treated as 24P in post and looks really really wonky.
> 
> And I left out my summary: assuming 24P is necessary:
> 
> Best value: Panasonic DVX100 (but doesn't do HD)
> Best HD option under 10k: Panasonic HVX-200
> Best Professional HDV for the money: Canon XH-A1
> Best Consumer HDV: Canon HV20
> Best Consumer DV: Sony's cheapos still have the picture quality edge,
> while Panasonic's have the interface/ergonomics edge.
> 
> Brook
> 
> 
> On 12/9/07, Brook Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Warning - long response.
> >
> > First - if you have a good rental house nearby I would strongly
> > consider renting for your for-hire work unitl you get a good sense of
> > what cameras you like and how their workflow works out for you. That's
> > what I'm doing right now - there's still a lot of upheaval in the low
> > to mid end HD production field and things will keep changing rapidly.
> > The fallout from the introduction of the RED camera is going to change
> > things drastically.
> >
> > That said, here's my take on the sub-10k cams I'm familiar with.
> > You'll note very little Sony or JVC mentioned - I used to favor Sony's
> > stuff, but they've fallen way behind in this field in my view. JVC
> > makes some very interesting midrange cameras, but I am leery of their
> >
> > For 24P in standard def/DV you are pretty much limited to the
> > absolutely excellent Panasonic DVX100 (or its more expensive big
> > brother, the HVX200, which also does HD once you add pricey P2 cards -
> > see below).
> >
> > For pro for-hire work I still try to avoid HDV except for projects
> > that are primarily interviews or other material that won't have a lot
> > of motion. The Canon HDV stuff does a better job than the other brands
> > on avoiding motion artifacts and blocking it seems, but you're going
> > to be delivering on DVD, h.264 files or an HD DVD / Blu-Ray pretty
> > soon for many clients, which means putting that long-GOP mpeg2
> > transport HDV stream through not only color correction and whatever
> > other image processing and compositing but ANOTHER pass of temporal
> > compression. That said, I know others who are using the the higher end
> > Sony and Canon HDV cameras for professional work. If you go that
> > route, the HX-A1 is a great value.
> >
> > If you want 24P in HDV, Sony has one model, but it has pretty crummy
> > low light performance. Canon's prosumer/professional HDV stuff does
> > 24F, which is kind of like a 24fps version of "frame mode" on the XL1
> > and GL1 - doesn't have the res of 24P but it has the look and can be
> > treated as true 24P in post.
> >
> > On the lower end - while I adore my little HV20 as an everyday
> > personal cam and even for my own filmmaking, it lacks the support you
> > really need for professional audio in the field (unless you're doing
> > double system sound), and is going to make most clients a little
> > uneasy since it looks and feels like a very cheap consumer camera.
> > It's 24P feature requires some extra steps in post as it doesn't carry
> > the cadence flags other 24P video equipment uses. The picture, once
> > you learn to get full manual control, rivals its more expensive
> > brothers and sisters though. It's the best consumer-for-pros

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blogs about Music?

[Bill Cammack]

And Julien Smith:  http://inoveryourhead.net

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Bill Streeter: Lo-Fi Saint Louis - http://lofistl.com/
> Vergel Evans: http://Lx7.ca
> 
> --
> Bill Cammack
> http://BillCammack.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Schoneveld"  wrote:
> >
> > Hey video friends...
> > 
> > I'm looking to subscribe to some good video blogs that cover music.
>  Anyone have any 
> > suggestions?  So far, I have:
> > 
> > - EPIC-FU
> > - Ill Doctrine
> > - Pitchfork's Forkcast
> > - Rock n Roll TV
> > - This City Rocks
> > 
> > and mine... Live Music Journal.
> > 
> > Any else?  There must be more great ones out there that I'm missing.
> > 
> > *Let me be clear:  I'm NOT looking for music video sites/aggregators
> and I'm NOT looking 
> > for music audio podcasts -- everyone always seems to suggest those
> (including Google).  
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Mark*
> > 
> > http://thepovertyjetset.com
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blogs about Music?

[Bill Cammack]

Bill Streeter: Lo-Fi Saint Louis - http://lofistl.com/
Vergel Evans: http://Lx7.ca

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Schoneveld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Hey video friends...
> 
> I'm looking to subscribe to some good video blogs that cover music.
 Anyone have any 
> suggestions?  So far, I have:
> 
> - EPIC-FU
> - Ill Doctrine
> - Pitchfork's Forkcast
> - Rock n Roll TV
> - This City Rocks
> 
> and mine... Live Music Journal.
> 
> Any else?  There must be more great ones out there that I'm missing.
> 
> *Let me be clear:  I'm NOT looking for music video sites/aggregators
and I'm NOT looking 
> for music audio podcasts -- everyone always seems to suggest those
(including Google).  
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark*
> 
> http://thepovertyjetset.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: my co-host from last year

[Bill Cammack]

Great video, Dan! :D  Getting all those people involved and having fun
and shouting out The Winnies! hahaha :D

Here's my promo:

<http://billcammack.com/2007/11/29/279-bill_cammack_iron_man_winnies_promo_071129/>

or

http://tinyurl.com/38mbm3

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sent us a promo from ITALY!
> thanks dan!
> 
> 
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Vu Bui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Nov 28, 2007 1:10 PM
> Subject: Winnies Promo from Rome
> To: Lan Bui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Irina Slutsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> Dan McVicar Winnies Promo...
> 
> http://blip.tv/file/509015/
> 
> Vu Bui
> 
> Photographer | Videographer | New Media Producer/Consultant
> 
> I am:  http://vubui.com
> I co-produce:  http://noodlescar.com
> I have become:  http://vugoesvegan.com
> I am organizing: http://youarethewinner.org
> I promote: http://shootsac.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://geekentertainment.tv
>

[videoblogging] Re: How not to manage a tech meltdown: Operator11

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "jonny goldstein"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Great example of how NOT to manage things when your alpha social web
> platform implodes.
> 
> Operator11, which I have had great experiences with in general, is a
> live streaming video platform. As of last night, their site has been
> down. 
> 
> Their forums are hosted on the same server apparently, so there's no
> info there.
> 
> Their blog, which is still up, was last updated in October. No news
there.
> 
> They don't owe me anything. They are a free service in alpha. 
> 
> But it would be in their interest to keep their users in the loop
> about what's going on, rather than leave us to stew in uncertainty.
> It's very easy for us to jump to another platform. 
> 
> Anyway, I hope they resolve their tech woes and I hope if they have
> future tech difficulties they keep their community better posted on
> what is going on.

That's not good AT.ALL. :/

I just checked, and the site is still down. Not like how Twitter goes
down and tries to fake you out with a picture of a bird! :D  Down as in:

"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at operator11.com."

Well... you may have to resort to blogtv to do your show tonight.  I
know that defeats the purpose of having your show archives on operator11.

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Bre gets a writeup in the Wall Street Journal

[Bill Cammack]

Sweet! :D

Congrats, Bre & Phil! :)

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "jonny goldstein"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's behind a pay wall, but here's an excerpt from an article about
> using video to help small business thrive:
> 
> "...Mr. Torrone discovered Bre
> Pettis, an art teacher from Seattle who had been videoblogging about
> his students' art projects. Mr. Pettis,
> Mr. Torrone says, was like Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wizard and Bill Nye "The
> Science Guy" rolled into one.
> Make's publisher, Dale Dougherty, agreed to bring Mr. Pettis on board
> in early 2006 -- after seeing a
> video of Mr. Pettis accidentally harpooning his cellphone. "There was
> a bad-boy kind of thing that I liked
> about it," Mr. Dougherty says. "It wasn't boring."
> Mr. Pettis, jokes Mr. Torrone, "has been voiding the warranty of
> electronics ever since."
>

[videoblogging] Re: Disgusting article about "viral video marketing"

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was hesitant to give this guy more attention than he already has,
> but thought it would be very relevant to see what is happening "out
> there":
> 
>
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-behind-many-viral-videos/
> 
> Many of us knew that the "Top Viewed Videos" on YouTube was 90% crap
> already honestly, i wasn't at all surprised - except that this guy
> is a TA at Stanford! Is this what our "Nation's Best" are being taught
> nowadays?
> 
> Why doesn't Mefeedia have a Videos tab with "Most Viewed Videos"? It
> is not a popularity contest - we want it to be about REAL people
> having REAL conversations. This reinforces that belief.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> -Frank
> 
> Frank Sinton
> 
> http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
>

Interesting article.

There are lots of people that use youtube as a means as opposed to an
end.  They put the videos on strictly for marketing purposes as
opposed to giving a damn AT ALL about making a good video or something
interesting or educational or that they feel good or proud about.  The
entire goal is "getting clicks back to our site", like the poster
mentioned.

There's a major difference between the questions "How do I get paid
FOR putting video on the internet?" and "How do I get paid BY putting
video on the internet?"  For a lot of people, the craft & artistry is
lost on them completely, and all they know is that this is a medium
where they could possibly make money.  Those same people will be
raising pigs when that comes in style. :/  Flying kites for profit. 
Engineering milk-substitutes... ANYTHING they can do to try to make a
dollar.

Gaming the youtube system has been "part of the game" for a long time,
already.  They have videos ON youtube about how to GAME youtube. :D  I
think the situation's only going to get worse now that the studios are
throwing their hats in the ring and releasing a lot more
broadcast-quality content onto the internet.

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: New Member Intro

[Bill Cammack]

Hey Dina. :)

Welcome to the group, and good luck with the new show! :D

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Dina P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
> 
> My name is Dina and I'm new to the world of videoblogging and the
yahoo group.  I'm the creator/host of Get Exercised, which can be seen
at http://getexercised.com/ 
> 
> Looking forward to learning more about other videobloggers and being
in touch with everyone.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving!
> 
> Dina 
> 
> 
> Dina Prioste
> By the way, you can Get Exercised with me at: 
> http://getexercised.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> -
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile.
Try it now.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Pay me fuckface

[Bill Cammack]

This is actually a good point.  There's going to come a time where the
dynamic changes, similar to what happened with television.

Television used to be free.  Your buy-in was the television itself and
MAYBE an extra antenna to get better reception.  The television
reception was via "the airwaves".

Now, there's cable television, which people pay for.  Not only the
specialty channels, but the regular broadcast channels as well.  WHY
pay for television?  More channels and perfect reception, instead of
ghosting and fuzz.  "Free for everyone" became "pay for better or
stick to worse".

Now that MSM, as we all knew was going to happen, has jumped on the
bandwagon of video distribution via internet, there's going to have to
be a similar turning point.  There will have to be a split between
"free content with less quality" and "paid content with more
quality"... quality being perhaps encoding bit rate or length of
program, like google video had ages ago.

If you have quality, niche programming, you can get people to
subscribe if you have benefits for their doing so, like in the cases
where you can see the program LIVE on the paid internet site, without
commercial interruption, or wait several days for the same exact
program to come on cable television... WITH added commercials and
cheesy announcers that subtract from your immersion into the program.

Sites like Joost and Hulu can be easily reconfigured to have free and
paid areas, just like even cable television has pay-per-view channels.

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting opinion piece in the NY times:
> http://tinyurl.com/3clb4z
> 
> "INTERNET idealists like me have long had an easy answer for creative
> types — like the striking screenwriters in Hollywood — who feel
> threatened by the unremunerative nature of our new Eden: stop whining
> and figure out how to join the party!
> That's the line I spouted when I was part of the birthing celebrations
> for the Web. I even wrote a manifesto titled "Piracy Is Your Friend."
> But I was wrong. We were all wrong. "
> 
> he's not really saying anything hugely new, but interesting that it's
> being discussed.
> will people expect web video to be free and subsidized by ads?
> or can independents make a direct relationship with the community like
> musicians are starting to do?
> 
> and of course we, personal videobloggers, will continue to roll on.
> http://nablopomo.ning.com/group/videobloggers
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>

[videoblogging] Re: Embed from Hulu beta

[Bill Cammack]

Phil Campbell <http://me.dm> said he got the same message in the UK. 
I'm trying again with a "30 Rock" clip because Phil suggested it might
have something to do with the rating of the first video I embedded.

http://billcammack.com/2007/11/20/trying-hulu-embed-again/



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Really?  How interesting.  There's only a generic embed code they
> produce.  The only way it seems you can alter it is with the slider
> they provide that marks your in and out points.
> 
> How much sense does THAT make?  I'll have to ask Phil Campbell if he
> can see it in the UK.
> 
> --
> Bill Cammack
> http://CammackMediaGroup.com
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor"
>  wrote:
> >
> > "Unfortunately this video is not available in your country or
region. We
> > apologize for the inconvenience."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 20/11/2007, Bill Cammack  wrote:
> > >
> > >   For those of you not on the beta, you can see how an embed looks
> from
> > > Hulu.com
> > >
> > > "Dick In A Box" SNL Short embedded from hulu.com =>
> > > http://billcammack.com/2007/11/20/dick-in-a-box-from-hulu-com/
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/22mq2f
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill Cammack
> > > http://BillCammack.com
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jeffrey Taylor
> > Mobile: +33625497654
> > Fax: +33177722734
> > Skype: thejeffreytaylor
> > Googlechat/Jabber: thejeffreytaylor@
> > http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Embed from Hulu beta

[Bill Cammack]

Really?  How interesting.  There's only a generic embed code they
produce.  The only way it seems you can alter it is with the slider
they provide that marks your in and out points.

How much sense does THAT make?  I'll have to ask Phil Campbell if he
can see it in the UK.

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Unfortunately this video is not available in your country or region. We
> apologize for the inconvenience."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20/11/2007, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   For those of you not on the beta, you can see how an embed looks
from
> > Hulu.com
> >
> > "Dick In A Box" SNL Short embedded from hulu.com =>
> > http://billcammack.com/2007/11/20/dick-in-a-box-from-hulu-com/
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/22mq2f
> >
> > --
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://BillCammack.com
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeffrey Taylor
> Mobile: +33625497654
> Fax: +33177722734
> Skype: thejeffreytaylor
> Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Embed from Hulu beta

[Bill Cammack]

For those of you not on the beta, you can see how an embed looks from
Hulu.com

"Dick In A Box" SNL Short embedded from hulu.com =>
http://billcammack.com/2007/11/20/dick-in-a-box-from-hulu-com/

or

http://tinyurl.com/22mq2f

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: [j2000] Looking for DP in Boston for shoot next week

[Bill Cammack]

It's not what you think it is.

--
Bill Cammack
http://BillCammack.com


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, gerry tejeda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is DP??  Since I'll be in Boston until Monday of next week. Thanks!
>
>
>   Gerry T
>   The GerryT Show "Where Mating & Dating Always Come Together"
>   http://TheGerryTShow.Blip.TV
>   http://GerryT.com
>   
> 
> Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   my friend from columbia
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Lisa Ammerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> If anyone has any recommendations, please pass along. Many thanks!
> Lisa
> 
> -- 
> http://geekentertainment.tv
> 
> 
>  
> 
>
> -
> Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Writer's changing the game through the web

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Writers and Studios are going back into negotiation.
> The article says that they are feeling the burn from all the bad
> exposure from the web.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/252bkt
> 
> "Studios were also fretting about their image. Executives at studios
> like CBS, Fox and NBC Universal have said privately that their side
> was losing the public relations battle because they were not
> responding to union claims. Some were concerned that the union, using
> blogs and YouTube to publish its message, was succeeding in painting
> them as greedy."
> 
> jay

"Greedy" as opposed to WHAT? :D

I think these "studios" need to mount their own internet video
campaign to explain away how bad they look when the writers show a
small small small small small small small sliver of a pie chart being
given to them right now, and them asking for a similarly small sliver
to be given to them under their new contracts, AND for them to get
paid for content that the studios receive money from for what they're
claiming is "promotional" posting of the writer's work to the web.

I guess they're having a problem getting people to *WRITE* the
dialogue for their rebuttal video! :D

But seriously, folks...

I haven't seen a single STITCH of text or video that makes the studios
look good in this situation.  Not a stitch.  I haven't seen or read a
single good argument... or actually, ANY argument whatsoever as to why
the writers shouldn't get what they're asking for.  I'm not involved
on either side, so it doesn't make a difference to me whether the
strike ends tomorrow or goes on for the next six months.  I just find
it interesting that such an apparently lopsided situation somehow hit
a stalemate.

It's a good thing they're talking In the meantime Let me know
if you want to cut a pilot for a reality tv show! hahahahaha :D

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com


> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>

[videoblogging] Re: Network-Quality series developed for The Net

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 18/11/2007 11:31:25 GMT Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> To add  INSULT to insult to injury... :D
> 
> According to Fox  News
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312073,00.html> and The New  York
> Post
> <http://www.nypost.com/seven/11172007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm>,  The
> Saturday Night Live (SNL) staff has been fired.  :O
> 
> 
> 
> Any INDEPENDENT verification for this, ie something that isn't a
Murdoch  
> rag?  Murdoch is known to be anti NBC because he thinks it's a
liberal  hotbed, 
> and he is mega conservative.  The NY Post once misreported a  situation 
> involving Keith Olbermann simply because he is employed by NBC.
>  
> Ian B

Not from me.  I don't have *any* independent verifcation for this at all.

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com

[videoblogging] Re: Network-Quality series developed for The Net

[Bill Cammack]

To add INSULT to insult to injury... :D

According to Fox News
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312073,00.html> and The New York
Post
<http://www.nypost.com/seven/11172007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm>, The
Saturday Night Live (SNL) staff has been fired. :O

Well... At least we know when we'll be able to tune in to NBC to watch
Quarterlife! :D

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "tim@"  wrote:
> >
> > I met one of the writers at Digital Hollywood and I think she said  
> > they were spending around $350,000 per episode.
> > 
> > I also heard from Shelly Palmer http://www.shellypalmermedia.com/   
> > that NBC is in talks to acquire online show Quarterlife.
> > 
> > 
> > Tim
> 
> Yes Sir Tim, you called it.
> 
> According to TechCrunch, NBC picked up Quarterlife:
> 
>
<http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/16/nbc-picks-up-made-for-myspace-show-quarterlife/>
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/384d9k
> 
> To add insult to injury, in the article, it says "The deal is the
> first time a made for internet program has been picked up by a
> television network in the United States."
> 
> To which Paul Kontonis of http://ForYourImagination.com pointed out
> that http://www.manandwife.tv got picked up by MTV back in June
> <http://www.reelpopblog.com/2007/06/mtv_picks_up_fa.html>.
> 
> --
> Bill Cammack
> http://CammackMediaGroup.com
> 
> 
> > Tim Street
> > Creator/Executive Producer
> > French Maid TV
> > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids
> > http://frenchmaidtv.com
> > Subscribe for FREE at: http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > 
> > MY BLOG: http://1timstreet.blogspot.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Nov 10, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Bill Cammack wrote:
> > 
> > > There's this online series called "Quarterlife" that's starting
> > > tomorrow on MySpace and the next day on http://quarterlife.com .
This
> > > could be of interest to those of us discussing monetization of the  
> > > space.
> > >
> > > http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/11/ 
> > > networkquality_series_develope.html
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/397fbc
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill Cammack
> > > http://CammackMediaGroup.com
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>